Many people have the experience of feeling like acting out a movie script they didn't write. It’s as if you can see the next scene coming, but you’re powerless to change the dialogue. We might even promise ourselves that 'next time will be different', yet when next time comes, we find ourselves just playing out the old script… again. It can be frustrating and make you wonder if you actually have any say in your own life, or if you’re just a passenger in your own skin.
This isn’t just 'in your head' - it’s actually the core of a massive, centuries-old debate. Some scientific discoveries and philosophical arguments have increasingly challenged the idea that we are able to make decisions that are truly free, suggesting instead that our actions are influenced by factors beyond our control. What are the implications of this paradoxically both philosophical but highly practical topic in psychotherapy?
What Does Science Say?
Science, with its relentless pursuit of causality, offers a view that seems to undermine the very foundation of free will. According to Determinism, every event, including human actions, is the inevitable result of preceding events, which are the results of the events that precede that, in turn which are the results of what precedes that, forming a chain right up to the beginning of time (and there is debate on the ‘beginning of time’ from what we know at the moment). If we trust this, it means that if all variables can be accounted for in a highly sophisticated way (which is beyond what humans could ever do), we could predict every action with certainty. While that does not seem something that is realistic to do, neuroscience has provided some particularly intriguing evidence that questions the existence of free will. For example, Benjamin Libet’s experiments in the 1980s revealed brain activity related to decision-making occurs milliseconds before individuals report being consciously aware of their decision to act [1]. However, the implications of Libet’s experiments have been widely debated.
Philosophical Perspectives: Free Will, Determinism, and Their Intersection
The philosophical debate over free will and determinism is old – and seemingly never gets old either. Thinkers like Baruch Spinoza and Pierre-Simon Laplace, have suggested that human beings, like all other entities in the universe, are bound by the same causal chains. Is there room for free will if that is the case? This notion is so deeply uncomfortable to others, who find it difficult to accept that everything is based on causality.
Daniel Dennett, a leading advocate of compatibilism, argues that free will and determinism can coexist. He suggests that free will should not be understood as the ability to act independently of all influences, but rather as the ability to act with agency [2]. For Dennett, although our present is shaped by our past, they still allow us to have intentions that reflect our values and goals.
On the other hand, philosophers like Robert Kane defend what is known as "libertarian free will", where individuals can make genuinely free choices that are not determined by prior events. Kane argues that in morally significant situations, we are ‘free to choose’ between different courses of action which are not limited by past events.
More recently there is Sam Harris, creating waves in some circles by arguing that free will is an illusion. He supports the belief that thoughts and actions are shaped by a combination of genetic, environmental, and neurological factors, all of which lie outside our conscious control. However, Harris still maintains that the ‘illusion of free will’ should not lead us to abandon morality and responsibility. If we can acknowledge that individuals are shaped by forces beyond their control, will it enable us to have a more compassionate understanding (and tolerance) of human behaviour?
Psychological and Therapeutic Implications
While differing perspectives highlight the complexity of the free will debate, in a therapy space, individuals can be helped to achieve an awareness and understanding of possible factors that affect their behaviour. This can be especially useful if the behaviours in question are problematic. Exploring environmental influences and predispositions due to family - whether genetic or upbringing can help individuals get a better understanding of previously unconscious motivations. Approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) emphasise accepting current thoughts and feelings, and committing to actions aligned with authentic personal values, rather than immediately attempting to control what is deemed unacceptable without sufficient understanding and self-compassion.
In therapy, as in life, the belief in the possibility of change and growth can play a major part in psychological well-being. Even if our choices are influenced by unconscious processes, psychotherapy can help with expanding our self-awareness. When you understand the forces that shape your reactions - your upbringing, biological factors, your environment - you can start seeing the 'why' behind the 'what'. We can then start to feel we are capable of navigating our unique experience, integrating any difficulties arising from our history with understanding and compassion.
References
[1] Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623
[2] Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom Evolves. Viking Press. (Specifically the chapters regarding "Evolutionary Perspective on Agency")