Impediments to Voluntary Action in Disease

Leave a comment

Most of us think we have free will, and most of us realize that there are limits to free will. If someone has, for example, a lesion in the brain, he or she might behave differently than normal without realizing what is happening. Aristotle discusses the case of a drunk person who commits a crime while drunk without realizing at the time what he was doing. He says that the wrong action itself is not voluntary; however, since the decision to drink too much was voluntary, the drunk person is responsible for his action.

Nature and nurture both cooperate in limiting our practical range of choices. Our heredity can set basic personality traits, environment can modify them, and we have learned that environment can modify a person’s genetics. A person’s own decision can modify his genetics as well–this discovery and others is the reason why epigenetics is a hot field in current biology.

Someone with schizophrenia who behaves in a destructive way due to the disease process in his body is making choices based on the fantasy world view characteristic of schizophrenics. The choice is voluntary in a way, but since it is based on an illusion caused by the illness, the choice is ultimately so constrained as to be involuntary. The same is true of other psychoses as well as most of the Class B personality disorders. Voluntary choice is constrained due to traits that sometimes result in the disintegration of the personality. A person does not have to reach the extreme of dissociative identity disorder to suffer from a fragmented personality. Overwhelming emotions characteristic of the Class Bs can interfere with voluntary action; the impulses can cause an adrenaline rush that can interfere with judgment, and in extreme cases a temporary dissociation can occur. I have struggled with my views on this matter over time. I have met psychologists who say that these persons have free will and have decided to focus on the self, and that such focus is characteristic of egotism and is evil. I once believed this was the case; however, on reading accounts of recovery from some of these conditions, including recovery from the notorious borderline personality disorder, I have reconsidered. J. R. R. Tolkien considered the Rin to be too great a temptation for anyone to bear–a temptation that a person could not resist. Perhaps overwhelming waves of emotion can temporarily limit the scope of voluntary action. The situation would be similar to those who are drunk or on drugs and have impulses they often cannot control. The difference is that in the case of mental illness, environment (and in some cases heredity) have molded a person into unhealthy patterns of behavior that may be too difficult to voluntarily resist. What are the options for such individuals?

It seems to me that the option is to seek treatment, just as alcoholics who are not forced to do so by the criminal justice system must voluntarily decide to be treated if they have any chance to be helped. I am not sure that a schizophrenic recognizes the need for help. If someone with one of the Class B personality disorders avoids denial and seeks treatment, it is possible, with a patient therapist and a long-term therapeutic relationship, for that person to be successfully treated. Dialectical behavior therapy, for example, has been useful in treating borderline personality disorder. The alternative, at least for this condition, is grim. BPD individuals do not intend to hurt others–not for sheer “meanness.” It stems from splitting (which I call “individualized Manicheanism” that puts a person into the “all good” category one moment and the “Satanic evil” category the next moment. Much of the behavior is the attempt of the fragmented personality to survive. Jesus said that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Could it be that a personality divided against itself can cause the body to be divided against itself? Some people with various mental conditions are in poor physical health. While that may be due to poor eating and exercise habits, I wonder if a mental disorder can be in a one-to-one correspondence with a physical disorder. Is it possible, for example, for a divided personality to cause the body to be divided against itself? If so, would the physical disease be eased or reversed if the disparate patches of personality could once again join into one? I suppose that is possible. Such a task would involve a skilled therapist with top-notch skills and the wisdom, as well as the knowledge, to help a person become whole again. My hope and prayer is that, with God’s help, all those who suffer from actions that are, at least in part, beyond their control due to illness, physical and/or mental, will heal.

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Psychologists

2 Comments

English: John Watson, founder of American beha...

Image via Wikipedia

A 2006 study in Sociology of Religion found that 50% of American psychology professors were atheists and 11% agnostic, making psychologists less religious than professors in any other field, including the other sciences. What is it about the field of psychology that lends itself to a non-theistic world view? The problem seems to be that psychology remains stuck in the nineteenth century, both in its overall world view and in its naive conception of science.

The nineteenth century non-religious intellectual usually rejected belief in God because there seemed to be no role for God in a Newtonian cosmos. Although Newton himself was a theist who believed that space is the “sensorium” of God, his followers generally saw no need for God in a mechanistic universe; as the French scientist Laplace famously said concerning God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.” A world of machines governed by deterministic laws could exist on its own without any God to sustain it in existence, a fact that the Irish philosopher George Berkeley recognized despite the problematic nature of his own idealistic metaphysics. The Newtonian world seemed to leave no room for “God, freedom, and immortality,” and Kant felt forced to accept at the level of phenomena a godless, deterministic universe, but affirmed God, freedom, and immortality to be postulates of practical reason. As Kant himself eventually realized (in his posthumously published writings), his view, at best, implies that human beings must act as if God, freedom, and immortality exist, but that these things belong to the unknowable realm of noumena about which we must remain agnostic.

After Darwin interpreted biology in terms of a Newtonian mechanical world view in his theory of evolution by natural selection, some intellectuals who hated the abrogation of any spirituality from the world turned back toward Descartes‘ dualistic philosophy in which mind is free, mind can exist after death, and with God being a great Mind, the fact that matter is determined by strict Newtonian laws does not oppose freedom and spirituality. Some of these intellectuals focused on alleged empirical evidence for mental powers above the physical and for survival of death by a mind, and thus the philosopher Henry Sidgwich and the classicist turned psychologist F. W. H. Meyers founded the Society for Psychical Research in London in 1882. Later, in 1885, the American Society for Psychical Research was founded, with the philosopher and psychologist William James serving as its second president. By studying phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and mediumship, these intellectuals desired to discover an empirical basis for the mind having powers beyond the standard interpretation of Newtonian laws. Although influential for a time, the Society suffered from vicious attacks from defenders of the strict Newtonian paradigm.

In England and in the United States, idealistic (in England) and pragmatic (in the United States) systems of philosophy were overwhelmed by the early analytic movement in philosophy, including the logical positivists. The Vienna Circle in the 1920s and 30s supported the position that only empirically verifiable statements or tautologies such as those found in mathematics and logic were meaningful. In psychology, the earlier open-mindedness of William James was replaced by the dogmatic behaviorism of John Broadus Watson which was continued by B. F. Skinner. Watson, influenced by the Vienna Circle, excluded all considerations of consciousness and other “unobservable” behaviors from psychology, focusing only on observable behavior as shown in stimulus-response behavior in mice and other animals. These animal “machines” were thought to be appropriate models of the behavior of “human machines;” thus both non-human animals and human beings were considered to be “automata.” God, as an unobservable entity, could have no meaning in such a world view.

Later, the cognitivist revolution in psychology overwhelmed behaviorism, but even cognitive psychology uses mechanical models for human cognition and behavior. Computational models, connectionism, neural network theory, and even functionalism are all basically mechanical models of cognition. They have difficulties dealing with the first person perspective of consciousness and both qualia and intentionality. With such a mechanical model of nature, there is still no room for a deity. Even with the quantum revolution in physics, which seems to oppose both absolute determinism and a mechanical model of the universe, most psychologists have stubbornly held on to the Newtonian world view, leaving no room for belief in God.

Psychologists, with some important exceptions, accept a nineteenth century view of science that has its ultimate origins in the thought of Francis Bacon in the seventeenth century. The notion of one “scientific method” in which the scientist collects observations, formulates a hypothesis, and tests the hypothesis through observation has been discredited by both philosophers of science (Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Laudan) and scientists (Kuhn was a physicist, as was Michael Polanyi, an important critic of the “received view” in the philosophy of science). Although physicists and chemists who actually do cutting edge research recognize that there are actually multiple methods in science, as well as some biologists (though some radical Darwinians are just as extreme as most psychologists), psychologists still retain an outmoded view of science and of the “scientific method.” They also tend to believe that science is the only reliable source of knowledge, ruling out knowledge via philosophy, religion, art, and literature. Scientists in other fields are not as closed-minded, and this leads to more openness to the possibility that a God might exist.

Psychologists need to move into the twenty-first century since most of them bypassed the twentieth century and stayed in the nineteenth century. They need to examine how changes in sciences such as physics have called to question the Newtonian world view and mechanistic model of the universe. They should read work in contemporary philosophy of science that challenges their naive hypothetical-deductivist system and take it seriously instead of merely dismissing it. They should be open to all empirical data, including actually reading articles on psi, instead of finding one or two “straw man” articles to attack in their introductory textbooks on research methods. Finally, they should be open to the possibility that there are other means of gaining reliable knowledge than a narrowly conceived “scientific method.” Only then will academic (mainly experimental) psychologists be open to other views than atheism and agnosticism concerning the existence of God.