Is Human Freedom an Illusion?

A critical discussion between the current neurophysiologically deterministic interpretation and Martin Luther’s theologically deterministic interpretation

Abstract

Without doubt, Gerhard Roth belongs to a group of contemporary prominent neuroscientists in continental Europe who argue for a deterministic interpretation of brain science findings. In their opinion, mental phenomena can be completely traced back to biological-neuronal processes. The human being is completely determined in his behavior - a claim that arouses highly theological and philosophical interest. Is human freedom an illusion? The Western theological and philosophical tradition has also always been aware of the difficulty of the problem of freedom.  A paradigmatic impulse was provided by the Reformer Martin Luther with his doctrine of the unfree will, which he develops above all in the occasional pamphlet De servo arbitrio (“On the Bondage of the Will”).  The Reformation theological tradition around Luther made the limitedness of the freedom of the human will the core statement of its theological program. The present paper endeavors to reconstruct and analyze the concerns and argumentation of the two authors in order to bring them into conversation with each other in a synthetic step. This paper shows that despite the superficial similarity in word choice and logical operation, the two approaches are fundamentally different. Not only did Luther argue in his historical context for a specific theological determinism due to human sinfulness in the face of God-relationship, which has nothing in common with a naturalistic paradigm. He also lays the foundation in his writings - contrary to Roth's abstract philosophical definition - for a differentiated, balanced, holistic concept of freedom in the Reformation tradition, which can be enriching and inspiring for us today.