Central to the plot of Clint Eastwood’s Invictus is William Ernest Henley’s short poem of the same name. Though the role of the poem suffers some historical revisionism in the film, its role in the life of Nelson Mandela is worth consideration. The film recounts the remarkable story of Mandela’s efforts at national reconciliation through his embrace of the South African rugby team, which at the time remained a symbol of Apartheid’s ethnic segregation. In 1996, when I returned for the first time to South Africa, my childhood home, some old friends shared with me how meaningful it was when Mandela appeared at Ellis Park donning the Springbok green and gold. I’m gratified that this remarkable story of reconciliation has made it to the screen, especially while Morgan Freeman is still with us. He was born to play Mandela. During Mandela’s long internment on Robben Island, Henley’s poem adorned a wall of his cell, a constant reminder that though his freedom had been taken from him, he remained “the captain of his soul“. The words of this poem, and their significance to Mandela, underscore a central point of contention in the debate about human free will. It seems to me that one problem with some arguments for compatibilism, the idea that determinism and human responsibility are compatible, is the conflating of freedom and free will. Mandela’s story is a powerful reminder that there is freedom beyond freedom. That is, it matters whether we are captains or merely observers of our souls.

One hears stories of doubtful Christians who when they seek counsel from their pastor or parents they are told to suppress their doubts

No matter their cause, every group falls short of its aspirations. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of atheism. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories and instead embrace classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Notably, he draws particular attention to the irony that it is the so-called “community of reason” that is so often hostile to the discipline of reason: philosophy.

No matter the cause, every group falls short of its aspirations. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of atheism. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories and instead embrace classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Notably, he draws particular attention to the irony that it is the so-called “community of reason” that is so often hostile to the discipline of reason: philosophy.

Any handful of people has both role models and lowlifes, aspirations and shortcomings, its best moments and its worst. And so, we all need prophets that call us back to our ideals. Amongst skeptics, atheists, and secularists, some quieter voices like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini have lamented the rise of a cavalry of imperious and hostile voices that have become the face of the self-described “community of reason”. More recently, Massimo Pigliucci, a member in good standing of said community, echoes their concerns. He calls upon his cohorts to reject scientism, anti-intellectualism and a number of vogue theories while embracing classic epistemic virtues like charity, respect, and civility. Notably, he draws particular attention to the irony that the “community of reason” is so often hostile to philosophy, the discipline of reason. Hear, hear. May it be so for all of us who participate in the conversation.