Free Will

Since I just did Predestination, it seems only fair that I talk about the opposite (and much more pleasant) concept of Free Will. On the Predestination discussion I asked "What is it?" and "Where does the concept come from?" We don't tend to ask this when someone posits Free Will. "Of course we have Free Will. Who would question it?" Um ... I'm about to.

You see, as it turns out, Free Will isn't as certain as you might think. According to Stephen Hawking in The Grand Design (which, ironically, denies fundamentally that it is any grand design), he argues that "free will is just an illusion." It is, to him and others like him, like "chance". "Chance" is simply the device we use to quantify things that have too many variables to actually figure out. Hawking says, "We would therefore have to say that any complex being has free will -- not as a fundamental feature, but as an effective theory, an admission of our inability to do the calculations that would enable us to predict its actions." So it's not some heretical hyper-Calvinist that questions whether or not Man has Free Will. The New York Times did an article a few years ago about how neuroscience is pretty sure that the mind is just ... oh, how did they put that? ... "a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control." Vivid imagery. Determinists argue that everything is an effect and, therefore, caused. As such, everything is "determined" and, as such, "free will" is a myth.

Beyond whether or not it exists, it seems like we can't even agree on what it is (although I'm pretty sure that your definition will largely affect your belief on whether or not it exists). In its simplest form it is "the ability to choose". Well, of course that exists. We all can choose, even if we're the proverbial monkey. We make choices, even if they're forced on us. "No, no," we're assured, "it's more than choosing." So, what? Well, some argue that it is autonomy, the ability to choose without any influences at all. This, of course, is nonsense. Without no influence at all, there is no means by which choices can be made. They would be random. Others are willing to accept that it is the ability to choose without coercion. In this version, you can be influenced internally and externally, but as long as the choice you make isn't forced, it's choice -- "free will".

Let's illustrate the problem further. Jonathan Edwards argued that human beings always choose according to their strongest inclination at the moment. People quickly deny this. "Of course not! People always choose to do things they don't necessarily want to do!" But if this is true -- if free will includes freely choosing things you don't will to do -- then it's not free will, is it? No, Edwards' version (which makes the only sense to me) refers to inclinations. Take your standard firefighter. He's standing at that doorway, feeling the heat. His natural inclination is to run like all the rest. But he hears a little girl's pleas for help inside. At this moment his strongest inclination overrides his natural inclination of self-preservation and he goes into the burning building to save her life. All things being equal, did he want to go into the flames? No, of course not. But it was his strongest inclination. Or take the classic, "Your money or your life!" You are being coerced to make a choice, to be sure, but it's your choice, and while you would prefer to give up neither, you will choose to give up the one you are least attached to -- according to your strongest inclination at the moment.

What about the Bible? What does it have to say about "free will". Well, first, it says nothing at all about free will. The notion of the freedom of the will is a philosophical one, not a biblical one. (Why then is it so strongly defended in Christian circles?) (Sorry. Rhetorical question.) However, the Bible does talk about the will. That fact alone tells us that humans do have wills. Can we call it "free" will? That's more difficult. God says that humans are naturally "inclined only to evil". That would mean that, if their wills were free, they would choose only sin. If they choose something else, it would not be because they were inclined to. Is that free? But we also know that humans are 1) called on to make choices and 2) held responsible for those choices. In the case of the absence of free will, the latter could not be the case. If we aren't allowed to make choices according to our own inclinations and without coercion, we cannot be culpable for our choices.

I would suggest, then, that the Bible supports the notion of free will despite our society's push to eliminate it. I would also suggest, however, that the Bible denies the notion of autonomy. We are told that "God will not interfere in your free will", but this is not true. (See, for instance, Gen 20:1-7, where God specifically prevents a man from choosing to sin.) Nor is there any indication that we can choose to do that which is against our nature to do. I mean, if we're choosing against our inclinations, is that really free will? And while the Bible may command humans to make choices that violate their natures, this doesn't require that we can make that choice. It is an imperative, not an indicative. So we should approach the topic of the free will with caution. It's not nearly as biblically broad as many seem to think.