Since the beginning of time, philosophers, scientists and theologians have sought to find out whether human beings have free will or whether other forces are at work to control our actions, decisions and choices.

Now, Florida State University philosopher Alfred Mele has been awarded a $4.4 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation to get to the bottom of this question for the ages. Mele, the William H. and Lucyle Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, will oversee a four-year project to improve understanding of free will in philosophy, religion and science. 

The primary purpose of the project is to improve understanding of free will in three spheres: science (especially neuroscience and social psychology); philosophy; and theology.  The project's website can be accessed here.

I previously posted in this blog about the new revelations of free will.  In fact, in 2008, Professor John-Dylan Haynes and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Germany reported findings of an extraordinary experiment which seems to show that 'free will' -- the most cherished tenet of humanity, which decrees that Man has total control of his own actions -- may, in fact, be little more than an illusion.

I read the book entitled Neurophilosophy of Free Will by Henrik Walter and Cynthia Klohr.  This among my many other self-study texts in theology, science and psychology posits questions including:  Do we control our own future or are the choices we end up making set in place in advance?

Neuroscientists routinely investigate such classical philosophical topics as consciousness, thought, language, meaning, aesthetics, and death. According to Henrik Walter, philosophers should in turn embrace the wealth of research findings and ideas provided by neuroscience. In this book Walter applies the methodology of neurophilosophy to one of philosophy's central challenges, the notion of free will. Neurophilosophical conclusions are based on, and consistent with, scientific knowledge about the brain and its functioning. Walter's answer to whether there is free will is, It depends. The basic questions concerning free will are (1) whether we are able to choose other than we actually do, (2) whether our choices are made intelligibly, and (3) whether we are really the originators of our choices. According to Walter, freedom of will is an illusion if we mean by it that under identical conditions we would be able to do or decide otherwise, while simultaneously acting only for reasons and being the true originators of our actions. In place of this scientifically untenable strong version of free will, Walter offers what he calls natural autonomy--self-determination unaided by supernatural powers that could exist even in an entirely determined universe. Although natural autonomy can support neither our traditional concept of guilt nor certain cherished illusions about ourselves, it does not imply the abandonment of all concepts of responsibility. For we are not mere marionettes, with no influence over our thoughts or actions. It will be interesting to see how Dr. Mele's project adds to this conversation.