Theological Refutations to Free Will

The topic of "Free Will" has long since been a discussion point in theology - most notably in Christianity. It's been used as a "rebuttal" to hard questions such as The Problem of Evil and/or Suffering, and why tangible evidence for the existence of God is so.... Elusive.

Most atheists I know (and a lot of theists too), usually tend to lean towards a stance of "Hard Determinism", which basically means that "free will" doesn't actually exist... That, at most, it exists as an illusion... The "illusion of Free Will".

What this stems from is our modern scientific knowledge about human behavior and how it's deterministically affected by external influences: The synapses in our brains, the hormones in our bodies, the hereditary traits in our genes, the social conditioning forced upon us by our parents, the social conditioning forced upon us by friends and society, our very experiences throughout our lifetimes, and so on.
All of these external sources have been shown to be what determines our 'choices' in life... Our "Free Will" so to speak... In a study after study in the fields of psychology and sociology.
So, in a sense, there is a sort of predetermination to our lives, our choices, and our 'Free Will'.

The above would, therefore, be the "scientific refutation" of "Free Will".

But is that enough to refute the theistic rebuttal of "Free Will"?
It would probably not from their point of view, because they believe in non-material souls, and they would most commonly believe that it is the true driving 'force' behind their "Free Will".
At least, that would be the most common belief.
So basically, what I'm trying to say is that "scientific refutations" would usually be useless here.

What we need to do, and what would be more effective, is to "meet them where they are" and refute their points there. In other words: Defeat their arguments using their own theology!

So without further adieu, here is a list of refutations to Free Will, based on the Judeo-Christian theology itself!

Illustration by Alex Eben Meyer

Prayer

Intercessory Prayer contradict Free Will.
Imagine someone who's praying for a cancer patient to get better.
Should God listen to that prayer?
If God actually interferes with our world and cures this patient of their cancer... wouldn't that interfere with some mortician's Free Will to earn a few grands from a casket and a funeral? BAM - Free Will refuted.
Don't even get me started on people who pray for their favorite sports teams... The number of players and fans of the rival sports team... All those Free Wills... DESTROYED.
Too bad.
Bottom line: You can't have both intercessory prayer and free will.

Also, when you combine prayer and Omniscience / Predetermination, then you get some rather bizzare implications... God supposedly knows in advance what you're going to pray for, and he supposedly knows in advance whether your prayer is going to get answered or not. But then... What's the point of prayer in the first place? Does God just enjoy hearing you beg, or something? And if God has some sort of 'grand plan' then why would he change it just to appease your prayers?
That's all pretty weird.

Omnibenevolence

If God is Omnibenevolent, then he would WANT to interfere with our lives in order to prevent disaster and suffering.
But... If on the other hand he allows the undisturbed existence of Free Will, then he knowingly allows the free rampaging of evil and suffering... And since evil and suffering demonstrably do exist... BAM - Omnibenevolence refuted. You can't have it both ways.

God's Plan

If God has a 'grand plan' of some sort which he himself has put forward in motion, and this 'plan' somehow affects our lives - then this is indeed a direct violation of our free will.
In other words: If our lives are PLANNED IN ADVANCE by God, then it means our lives are predetermined by God, and we have NO free will.
But it's the PLANNING which contradicts our free will.
Not the "predetermination" by itself (unless the 'predetermination' was done purposefully by God... Which is the same as 'planning', basically).

"Historically" Violated Free Will

As most of us have read the Bible, I'm sure most of us are familiar with the many stories in it where God himself has interfered with the affairs of humans in some way or another.

One stark example of such a story is the Jewish exodus from Egypt.

Remember the passage where God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he would refuse Moses's plea to let his people go? That's a rude violation of Pharaoh's Free Will right there! Also, all the ten plagues of Egypt? Is each one of them not a direct violation of the Egyptian citizens' Free Will?

There are of course many such stories throughout the Bible where God supposedly violated someone's Free Will by interfering with our world in one way or another.

So that means that "historically" (i.e. based on the Bible) God HAS ALREADY violated humanity's Free Will. So what changed so drastically that he supposedly doesn't do that anymore?
Did Jesus happen? I dunno, Jesus seemed to have interfered with people's Free Will after his resurrection too. Remember St. Paul? He never even met Jesus in person! Jesus was supposedly revealed to him through visions or dreams. Is that not a violation of Paul's Free Will?
Speaking of visions and dreams...

Modern Violations of Free Will

Have you ever heard about "born again Christians" who, for whatever reason, at some point in their lives, had Jesus "reveal himself" to them, and thus convincing them to convert to Christianity?

There are many such stories trouted around, some a bit famous, some not so much.

Now, let's put the total unreliability of these stories aside for a moment and give them the benefit of the doubt.

What does this mean for these people's Free Will?

Obviously it would mean that God has chosen to interfere with these people's lives and has effectively violated their Free Will!

So if Christians believe such stories to be true, then why use the Free Will argument in the first place?? Doesn't look like it's an actual concern to God.

I know, I know, some Christians would claim that it's not an actual violation of Free Will because such stories only come from Christians who "looked for Jesus" before actually having him revealed to them. So it was their "will" that Jesus would be revealed.

Well, first of all: No, NOT all such stories come from people who "looked for Jesus". There are several such stories that come from people who claim to have been "atheists" until that moment of revelation (for example, during a near-death experience as a result of a car accident), so technically they didn't have the "will" to have Jesus revealed to them.

Also, there are plenty of stories of people who did "look for Jesus" and had the "will" to have him be revealed to them, and yet no such thing happened - and those people became atheists because of that.

So we see that there's an inconsistency here.

Of course, one might claim that those people who had Jesus revealed to them really did "look for him", even if they claim otherwise; and those people who did not have Jesus revealed to them, did not actually "look for him", even if they claim otherwise.

But then, if you make such an argument, you would be making unfalsifiable assertions, presuppositions, and baseless assumptions about people's feelings. Not a very strong line of argument, to say the least (but aren't they all like that? tee hee).

But what if Free Will does actually exist?

If an apologist still insists that Free Will actually exists and is important to their God, then based on all the points raised previously, they would have to concede to the following:

1. God does not answer prayers.
2. God is not omnibenevolent.
3. God does not have a plan.
4. The Biblical stories are almost all lies because God never interfered with human affairs (or, alternatively: God used to interfere with human affairs, but doesn't anymore).
5. All the "born again Christians" who speak of God revealing himself to them are either liars or delusional.
6. God, in general, doesn't interfere with human affairs. Therefore it's indistinguishable from him not existing, or being dead.

As you can see, these are points that you'd find are very difficult, if not impossible, for apologists to concede to. But then they find themselves stuck in cognitive dissonance, holding two contradictory viewpoints: God is/does X, but it doesn't look like he is/does, because of Free Will, but if Free Will exists, then God is/does not X.

Which brings me to the following...

The Real Problem: Presuppositions and Rationalizations

Don't delude yourself even for a moment.
Even if you bring any of those points up to an apologist, they will most likely do have some sort of answer for it.
Sure, it won't be logical, it won't be making much sense, but it does make sense to them.

The reason is simple:

They presuppose that God exists.

They presuppose that he's omnipotent, omniscient and all that.

They don't look for logic. They don't look for evidence. They look for rationalizations for the sole purpose of maintaining their presupposition.

Here's a simple demonstration:

Superman is invincible. He cannot be killed. That would be our presupposition.

Therefore, we conclude that, among other things, Superman would be immune to bullets.

Please note that in this exercise we never actually seen Superman being fired upon.

We were only told that he's invincible. But never actually seen it ourselves.

But then, one day, some guy fires at Superman using a pistol, and Superman dies as a result.

What happened? Isn't Superman supposed to be invincible? No, no, something isn't right.

Maybe the bullets are special? Made of Kryptonite? That would be our first rationalization.

But we check the evidence and we see that no, the bullets dug out of Superman's corpse are plain Earth metal. Just regular copper alloy.

Wait, what? That's impossible. No, no, it must be something else.

Superman is supposed to be invincible... He would know that he's invincible, therefore he would know that the bullets wouldn't hurt him... Unless... Unless he knew that they would? But then, it would mean that Superman had let the bullets hit him even though he knew it would kill him...
But... That would mean that Superman wanted to be killed?? Our second rationalization creeps in.

So if Superman wanted to be killed, that means there's some sort of ulterior reason for it... He sacrifices himself... But for what? At this point we would look for clues in what Superman said and did when he was still alive... Maybe... Just maybe he threw some hints about his reasons? Some sort of clue? Our third rationalization developes.

We look through the evidence and we see no clue... We see no sign of Superman knowing that he's going to be killed or leaving some sort of post-morterm message.

Then that means.... That must mean that whatever message he left, it was secret! Yes, that's it!
It must have been told to someone in secret! But who could share in Superman's secret??

GASP! It must have been the shooter! The same person who shot and killed Superman in the first place! Who else would be stupid enough to even try and kill an invincible being?? Someone who was in on it, that's who!

And so our rationalizations go on and on and on...

Without a single shred of evidence to support any of it.

Before long, the rationalizations themselves become the only piece of "evidence" that there is.
They become "canonized", so to speak. With time and generations going by, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish the facts from the fiction, the evidence from the rationalizations...

And thus - a legend is born.

That is the same story with Jesus Christ.
From being the "son of God" who was supposed to be a demi-God who would lead a revolution, he was killed - against all expectations, and from there the rationalizations flowed and flowed on and on and on.

This is why the most "detailed" scriptures of the New Testament... Those that contain the most fantasmical information about Jesus... Were those that were written the latest.

This is how LEGENDS are born.
Legends.......
Based on fictions....
Based on rationalizations....
Based on presuppositions.....
Based on....

Nothing.

The non-contradiction between Free Will and Omniscience

This post was redacted and replaced by the following:

Theological Refutations to Free Will

The Inherent Fallacy in the Argument from "Fine Tuning"

The argument from "fine tuning" is a broken and fallacious argument from its very core.
It's completely meaningless to argue about the small points and whether some phenomenon is actually true and/or amazing and/or "has to be exact in order for us to exist".

I mean, sure it's a bonus when so many creationists get SO MANY scientific facts so terribly wrong while trying to invent scientific support for their "fine tuning" argument.
But pointing out those errors isn't going to change anything.
They'll just keep making new errors.

The fact of the matter is very simple:

The "fine tuning" argument is NOT an argument FOR god.
The "fine tuning" argument is an argument AGAINST god.
Think about it.

What if the universe wasn't fine tuned the way it is? What if it was vastly different?
Obviously, we would not exist. At least, that's what any sensible and reasonable person would say, and that's also the main point that creationists are trying to get across:
We exist because we exist in a universe whose physical laws allow us to exist.

But... What's so amazing about that? What does it actually prove?
That in order for us to exist, certain conditions must be met, and since we observe that those conditions are indeed met, then that proves... what?
It's nothing but a tautology - a truth statement proving nothing but itself.

Not only that, but this argument also assumes that everything that exists comes from nature, because everything must obey natural laws...
In other words... This argument assumes NATURALISM.
And isn't that the opposite of arguing for a supernatural God?

But you know what WOULD have been amazing?

If we existed in a universe WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED US TO EXIST.
Think about it.

Imagine if we had found ourselves in a universe where the laws of physics shouldn't have allowed us to exist.

I'm not talking about our existence being "unlikely" or "highly improbable" or "having an infintecimal chance of happening" or however you want to call it.

I'm talking about a physical impossibility.
Wouldn't THAT be actual evidence of an 'all powerful intelligent designer'? Wouldn't THAT be an actually amazing supernatural miracle - by definition!?

Indeed many creationists do try to claim such evidence that would suggest that our existence is "impossible" based on physical laws and observations.

Their most favorite is the argument against Abiogenesis: i.e. it's impossible for a living being to naturally evolve from non-living matter through purely chemical processes (a.k.a. "chemical evolution", "origin of life", etc.).

Unfortunately for them, multiple scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite:
Chemical evolution of non-living matter into a living organism is very much possible, and in more ways than one, even.

Sure, scientists have yet to prove which of the possibilities gave rise to our own biological evolution specifically, and indeed the chances of any such process to happen naturally is rather improbable (which supports the observation that biological life is indeed very rare on a cosmic level).

But it doesn't matter.
It is proven to be possible and that alone is enough to undermine the entire creationist argument of "fine tuning".

Why does God take credit for the good things but not the bad?

Well, first of all, god doesn't "take" anything, because god doesn't exist.

It's the people who assign to him the credit.

But why do they do that?

In the past, when polytheism was prevalent, people used to assign the bad things to the gods as well, not just the good things. Gods were often seen as capricious, erratic, and even irrational in their "behavior". And while it better matched the reality of how nature "behaved", it would instill a strong sense of inconvenience in the hearts of people. Imagine having your life governed by a bunch of capricious, erratic and irrational powerful beings. Doesn't seem very nice, does it? Quite depressing, even. It can make you feel powerless and helpless in the face of such odds.

Greek gods and goddesses influencing human affairs from above the clouds

Enter Christianity: Here we have these new 'preachers' who go around talking about an "all-loving" and "perfect" god. Such that always has our best interest in his heart. Such that even 'sacrificed' his own life for our benefit.
After years living under the tyranny of capricious and sadistic beings, now all of a sudden it appears that it wasn't these powerful beings who were at fault at all... Because they didn't even exist. But it was us the humans who were at fault.

Now, all of a sudden the "power" to "fix" the world lays in our hands. And all we have to do? All we have to do is to "fix" our belief system. Just believe in a different god who is "the one true god". Suddenly the people don't feel powerless anymore. Suddenly the good fortunes and benefits are right behind the corner, and it's super easy to get there! All you have to do is say "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" and ABRACADABRA you are now without illness or sadness and you are "saved", if not in this life then in the next.

The 'one true God' loves you and wants to help you. But there is something you must do in return.

From the movie "Agora" (2009)

It's almost like voting in political elections:
You vote for the candidate who promises you the best things.

If people had not assigned the good things to their god, then their god is redundant and unnecessary. Such a belief system would simply not survive as a religion.

If people had assigned the bad things to their god, then it makes their god capricious and undesirable. You wouldn't want to "vote" for such a "candidate". It also makes the people feel powerless to fix the bad things that happen in their life.

Bottom line is:

People assign the good things to god, and the bad things to themselves, due to wishful thinking.

They wish to have the power to change things for the better (using minimum effort as possible), and they wish that the god they worship would be a good god - and therefore worthy of worship.

To this effect, Christianity is the result of "religious evolution" where the religion that sounds better to the people (i.e. tells them what they want to hear) is the religion that survives better than the rest (and not because it's more "true" than other religions).

Special thanks to Atheist Republic for the inspiration to this post.

Everyone, deep down, is an Atheist

Throughout all of known human religious history, mankind has always "put" gods in the places that seemed most unreachable to mankind:

In the depth of a cave.
In the bottom of the sea.
At the top of the mountain.
Inside a volcano.
In the sky above the clouds.
Somewhere out in space.
In a parallel dimension.
In a parallel reality.

But all this proves one thing and one thing only:

Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
But if these gods are "undetectable", then how could they reach conclusions about them in the first place?
And most importantly, how could these conclusions be so vastly different between different cultures (religions) and even between different individuals within the same culture (religion)?

Using Occam's Razor, the simple answers become very apparent:

Gods are "undetectable", because that's how non-existing things tend to be.
Gods are differently represented by different people, because gods are manifested within the imagination of individuals.

Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
That's why whenever a person imagines a god, the first thing they need to do... is to put this god in a place which would be unreachable by humans...

For the sole purpose of justifying their apparent non-existence.

There is only one place where gods were ever proven to exist:

IN HUMAN IMAGINATION.

This is my God. There are many like it but this one is mine.

The God's Creed (based on the Rifleman's Creed from Full Metal Jacket):

"This is my god, there are many like it but this one is mine.
My god is my best friend. He is my life. I must know Him as I know myself.
My god without me, is nothing. Without my god, I am nothing.

I will believe my god be true, I must believe better than my enemy who has a different god,
I must believe in my god better than he believes in his…. I will.
My god and I know what counts in religion is not the evidence we have,
the soundness of our logic, nor the voice of reason.
We know that it is faith that counts. We will have faith…

My god is human, just as I, it’s how I can relate to Him.
Thus I will never learn about Him more than I’m told at church,
never learn of His weaknesses, His strengths, His character, His history,
His origins and His followers.
I will ever guard Him against the ravages of atheists and heathens.
I will keep my god clean and moral, even as I am clean and moral.
We will become part of each other. We will…

Before god I swear this creed, my god and I are the defenders of my religion,
we are the masters of other religions, we are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until there is no other denomination but my own."

This poem is based on the concept that Religions are Unreliable.

God on Trial

God on Trial is a 2008 BBC/WGBH Boston television play written by Frank Cottrell Boyce, starring Antony Sher, Rupert Graves and Jack Shepherd. The play takes place in Auschwitz during World War II. The Jewish prisoners put God on trial in absentia for abandoning the Jewish people. The question is if God has broken his covenant with the Jewish people by allowing the Nazis to commit genocide.[1]

The movie contains extremely powerful dialogue and thought-provoking notions.
It brings up the question of God's very existence, as well as God's nature as either good or bad (and that we simply were lucky to "have him on our side" for a while).
And who are in a better position to make this judgement than the poor Jews in Auschwitz waiting for their death?

More info about the movie (Wikipedia page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_on_Trial

YouTube removes these videos due to copyright, but some scenes are available in the below Facebook group page (belonging to the Israeli Atheist group "Brotherhood Without God"):

https://www.facebook.com/BrotherhoodWithoutGOD/videos/1501456570077233/

https://www.facebook.com/BrotherhoodWithoutGOD/videos/1501827126706844/

Videos are in English with Hebrew subtitles included.