Ever since I started talking to people about religious topics, the concept of 'free will' has been popping up every now and again. People insist they have free will. Apologists like Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace & even Dennis Prager teach people 'God gave humanity free will'. They fail to see the implications that brings with it.
These apologists show their misunderstanding of the concept when they ask "Do you have the free will to ask this question?" The idea seems to be, that one either has a 'complete free will' or 'no will' at all. This is a gross misconception.
I've asked people to define 'Free Will' to me and I'm surprised that people do in fact know the correct definition of free will. But then, they simply fail to apply it properly.
The definition provided to me, often is: "free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." Which is the correct definition. I myself break it down in to these two pieces, to make it easier:
1. The freedom of thought; 2. The freedom to act on those thoughts. When either one of these is infringed, your will can not be completely free.
Where people usually claim they do have "free will" to act at one's own discretion, somehow the consequences of those actions are not subjective to "free will". I propose that, "as soon as you interact with an entity that can impose its will on you, then you do not have a complete free will". This includes consequences of your actions. This is where the discussion starts.
The concept I use is fairly straightforward. As soon as someone or some entity, with a will of its own, influences you or your actions, then your will is limited by this. It doesn't really matter what those consequences are either, as long as they change your mind.
An example: Let's say you want to go and watch a sportsgame after dinner. You just sat down, when your partner asks you to do the dishes. You have the 'will' to watch the game and not do the dishes. But is that will free? The consequence might be an argument with your partner, which might even be during the game. This would defeat the purpose of not doing the dishes, as you would still mis a part of the game you want to see. So, you could change your mind and miss a part of the game and instead act upon the wishes of your partner, to do the dishes.
You changed your mind, in order to avoid possible consequences. Your will to watch the game was limited and the will to not do the dishes was also limited. When using the argument, I've been pointed to the fact that you can 'change your mind willingly'. This is true, but what is the motive? I maintain that this has to do with pressure from the prospect of undesirable consequences.
This would mean, that your will is not 'free" and not 'non-existent', it is limited. Between 100% free and 0% free is a vast array of possibilities, all indicating that there is some level of limitation of your will. This is not a problem. We use this everyday. Like with the prospect of unavoidable punishment.
An example: You have the free will to run a red light on an crossroad. When this crossroad is guarded with a security camera, you will receive a ticket for running this red light. Now, people will claim they have the 'free will' to run this red light. When they do, they will claim, they have the 'free will' to not pay the ticket, even though this would be the consequence. But is all this true? If you run a red light and receive a ticket, when you don't pay, chance are there will be an unavoidable consequence down the line. Like your car might be confiscated or you might even have to spend a couple of days in jail.
Even when you run a red light, there is the prospect of unavoidable consequence. This prompts you to stop and wait. The prospect of punishment influences your actions and instead of breaking the law, you obey it. Therefor your will to run this redlight is not free, but limited.
One of my favorite examples to use is 'poking a bear'. The principle is the same as with the red light. You may feel you have the free will to poke a bear, but do you have the free will to not be mauled by this bear? It is an entity that can impose its will on you. The prospect of being mauled acts as a deterrent to stop you poking the bear. If you do poke it and it decides to impose it's will on you, how free is your will in not being mauled?
Once I was asked, if I wanted to control the bears actions. Which is not the case. I am merely saying that the bear is bigger, stronger and faster than you are and that you can not fight off the bear. So, how do you avoid being mauled? By changing your mind and not poke it. Thus, you are not completely free to poke it.
The biggest misconception is that "your will is either free, or completely absent". This is not true. With regards to your partner, the government or other entities there are different levels of possible infringement of your will. It can only be completely free, when you do not interact with any entity that can impose its will on you.
Does an all-knowing God infringe your free will?
With the 'Free will' discussion there is one entity that always infringes your free will. God. If a god exists, then you can not have free will. How do I know? Well, as soon as you go against his will, he will impose his will on you and you do not have the liberty to avoid it. He will put consequences on you, which you then can not avoid. Ofcourse it is claimed that people are not sent to hell, they choose to go there. But that is a discussion for a different time
God is said to be all-knowing. Thus he also knows the future. Subsequently he would know every choice you will make in the future. Question is, does this influence your free will? Well. No, not actively. What this does is, it removes the choices completely.
when you enter a T-junction, you would have the free choice to go either left or right. But, when God already knows prior to you arriving at the T-junction that you will go left, then the option to go right doesn't exist. If it did, then God could be wrong, if you would go right. Since God already knows you will go left, you don't have the choice to go right.
The option to go right, might aswell not exist and this could just aswell be a left turn in the road, since, you can not go against God's knowledge. This is not an entity making you do something against your will.
The simplest comparisson to make here, would be the humans inability to fly, without aides. We don't have wings. So even if we want to, we can not just go and fly like a bird. That option doesn't exist.
The consequence of God's knowledge of the future is similar to this. It removes alternative options. It makes it a physical impossibility to do something. Is it predetermination? Well... Not in the sense that God causes you to make a choice he desires. But in the sense that he has ascertained the outcome prior to the event, yes in that sense it is predetermination.
But any which way you look at your "will" as soon as you interact with any entity that can impose its will on you, your will is not free, but slightely limited. And that's okay. I don't understand why people must insist that they do have 'free will' when it is obvious they don't. Even if someone changes your mind, to go and do something you like, then still this infringes your will, since you will be doing something you had not intended to do.
It really is this simple. Why do people object to not having an "absolute free will"?
Comments