The Illusion of Free Will in Christianity

Free will does not exist, nor is it taught in the Bible

When I talk to Christians about why God doesn’t just make everyone believe in Him to prevent anyone from going to hell or sinning against each other, they often say, “God gives people free will to choose for themselves.”

But here’s the thing: the concept of free will, as we traditionally understand it, isn’t as clear-cut in the real world. What’s more, some Bible teachings that most Christians support don’t quite align with the idea of free will.

What is free will?

Traditionally, free will is defined as the ability to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. This means that individuals have the capacity to choose between different options and the decision is up to them.

Most of us have this feeling of autonomy that we can decide things for ourselves. We think about our options and then choose what we want to do.

From the Christian viewpoint, God doesn’t want to make people believe in Him by force. Instead, He lets individuals decide for themselves whether they want to believe in Him or not.

External influences (nurture)

But here is the thing. Can external factors influence our desires and drive our choices in a certain direction? The answer is a resounding yes. For instance, if both your parents are world-class musicians and you grew up surrounded by musical instruments, it’s more likely that you’ll become interested in music compared to the average person. While you might believe you’ve consciously chosen a music career, this decision isn’t made in a vacuum.

Now, contrast this with individuals raised in a working-class family, where music wasn’t a big part of their upbringing, and they never had encouragement to learn any musical instruments. What are the odds that they’ll develop a passion for music later in life?

Is it fair to say that both sets of individuals have the same level of free will when it comes to decisions about music, like buying concert tickets or investing in expensive grand pianos? Clearly not.

Now, let’s apply this to religion. The majority of Christians were raised in Christian families, and the same goes for followers of other religions. Our upbringing has a significant influence on the religion we ultimately choose to follow as adults.

It’s not solely about the positive or neutral exposure during childhood that leads people to adopt their parents’ beliefs. It also includes negative religious experiences that may cause individuals to develop strong aversions or disgust towards certain religions, leading them to “freely” decide to reject those beliefs.

Internal influences (nature)

Our decisions are influenced not only by external factors but also by elements within us that we can’t control. A prime example is our DNA. We don’t have a say in how our genes are structured, yet they play a significant role in shaping who we are and what we do.

Our genes, for instance, drive us to feel hungry and seek food. They’re also responsible for the pain we feel when we’re unloved. (We don’t choose to feel hurt; it just comes naturally due to our genetic makeup.)

In the previous section, you might have disagreed with me regarding people’s varying interests in music. You might have thought of examples where talented musicians had no exposure to music during childhood, but fell in love with it as adults.

But does this imply that they actively exercised their free will in deciding to pursue music? No, it suggests that their internal makeup is inclined in a way that makes them instantly love music when they encounter it. Their will is preconfigured to be drawn to music. In such a scenario, there isn’t true freedom in the decision-making process.

Don’t get me wrong. Our wills are still wills even when they’re influenced by outside and inside factors, but they’re not really free. If we claim that human wills, even when strongly shaped by these influences, are still “free,” it makes us question what “free” really means.

Difference between free will and randomness

Let’s take a moment to picture what free will should look like based on its conventional definition. If everyone truly had free will, what would that world look like? Would it mean that people’s choices are evenly spread out?

For instance, would half the population want to marry someone of the opposite gender, while the other half wants to marry someone of the same gender? If that were the case, would it be a demonstration of free will?

If yes, how is that different from randomness?

Most supporters of the idea of free will would argue that it’s not the same as randomness. After all, it wouldn’t make much sense to emphasize our ability to make random decisions. So, the big question is: if free will isn’t the same as random will, then what does it look like in practice?

Honestly, it’s a tough question. It’s almost as if the concept of free will doesn’t practically fit into our world as we understand it.

So there you have it. I’ve laid out my arguments suggesting that the type of free will most Christians believe in may not be something we actually have.

However, I want to delve deeper and emphasize that many Christians frequently behave in ways that are not in line with their belief in the existence of free will. This inconsistency is nearly unavoidable since the Bible contains explicit teachings that contradict the very notion of free will.

Everyone sins according to the Bible

If we believe in the existence of free will, we would expect some people sin, while others don’t. It makes no sense to say that everyone has free will, but they all freely decide to sin. How free can your will be if no one can live without sinning?

Many Christians point to the idea of original sin or the concept of a sinful nature to explain this. They say that because of Adam and Eve’s fall, all humans inherit a tendency to sin from them.

Sure, that can explain why everyone sins, but it also clashes with the idea of free will. If people are bound by their sinful nature in a way that makes it impossible for them not to sin, then it logically follows that they don’t truly have free will.

Threat of hell

Imagine a situation where a robber points a gun at you and says, “Do you want to keep your wallet or your life? Decide.” Now, do you really consider that a genuine choice?

Let’s say you give up your wallet, and later, the robber gets caught and faces trial. Can the robber reasonably argue that you willingly handed over your wallet by your own free choice, so it wasn’t a robbery? That sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

A choice made when you’re under pressure or threatened isn’t a choice made freely. That’s just common sense.

When it comes to trying to persuade non-believers to convert to Christianity, many Christians often warn them about the potential consequences they might face in the afterlife. However, they might not realize that such warnings essentially contradict their belief that God grants everyone the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in Him.

In our daily lives, someone who insists, “If you don’t love me, your life will turn into a nightmare,” is typically labeled as an abusive partner. Yet, when the conversation turns to God, this statement is often seen as an expression of deep love. Christians often justify the idea of a loving God by saying, “If you reject God, it means you choose to go to hell. You can’t blame God for sending you there due to your unbelief; it’s on you.”

That’s just bull. That sounds exactly like what someone suffering from Stockholm syndrome would say.

Promise of heaven

Some progressive Christians do not subscribe to the concept of hell. However, even if they are correct in their belief that hell doesn’t exist, it doesn’t necessarily make the belief in free will any more logical. Even without the notion of hell, there is still the concept of heaven that they can reference during evangelism. Threats of punishment and promises of reward may have slightly different psychological effects on people, but they both exert pressure on people’s will.

The American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics states that researchers should avoid using excessive incentives to recruit participants because it amounts to coercion.

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation: 1. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.

Having the freedom to make choices is a good thing, and it can be compromised by both rewards and punishments. Members of the APA (American Psychological Association) believe that people’s ability to freely choose is undermined when they’re offered such enticing incentives that they can’t resist participating in research.

Now, consider the promise of salvation, eternal life, and endless happiness — it’s essentially a very enticing offer to believe in Jesus. Christians can’t emphasize the importance of free will on one hand and then entice people into their beliefs with such alluring promises.

In simpler terms, when Christians exploit people’s emotional vulnerabilities to persuade them to believe in Jesus, it goes to show they don’t actually respect people’s free will which they think everyone is supposed to have.

Conclusion: Belief is NOT a decision

Christians often suggest that we can choose to believe something is true, but in reality, belief isn’t a choice we consciously make. It’s something that happens to us, not something we can control.

Consider this: can you will yourself to believe that there’s an old white-bearded man riding a sleigh in the sky on Christmas Eve?

I can’t.

My natural instincts (internal influence) make it hard for me to accept something as true if it seems implausible. My education and life experiences (external influences) have trained me to be critical when evaluating ideas. So, I don’t have a choice but to question claims that lack a solid basis.

In other words, I can’t compel myself to believe in a religion without sufficient evidence demonstrating its truth. My mind won’t allow it. Once I see enough evidence, I’ll naturally lean towards accepting it as true. Until then, asking me to have faith without proof is an impossible task.