I've never found a satisfactory definition of what Free Will actually is. Free from what? To me it seems that Free Will as a commonly understood concept is only sustainable if you assume that there is a non-physical element to the human mind - a soul or spirit - that can over-ride the physical limitations of your mind resulting from its link to the human brain. Free Will is a spiritual concept as it is that which allows our spiritual sides over-ride our physical sides.
If you reject the possibility of mind-body dualism (and as there is no evidence for dualism, there's no reason not to reject it) then human decision making in all its aspects must arise from the physical behaviour of the brain. Thus, true Free Will is impossible. We all do what we do because of the way our brains function. A secular, scientific society like ours should question Free Will openly in teh same way we question theism.
So why is it so readily accepted as existing? Free Will is such a big deal in the West because it has been used as a central plank of Christianity for centuries. God gave us Free Will (or we took it ourselves by eating that apple) and it's this Free Will that allows us to choose to worship him and to have faith in him (ironically). Without it, getting into Heaven would effectively be down to cuircumstances of birth, which kinda goes against the idea of Jesus sacrificing himself so that any one of us can be Saved.
This has carried forward into secular society and a belief in Free Will has justified not only liberalism and consumerism, but also allows advertising and political news management. Without Free Will, the establishment would have to question whether or not we actually can freely choose who we vote for or whether or not we get drunk every Friday. It would also change the way our politics work - a deterministic mind is easy pickings for political spin and news management, and without the defence of "anyone can freely choose to ignore what we say, and freely choose to vote against us" this behaviour would be seen as highly undemocratic.
I would suggest that it is this faith in the idea of Free Will that is the most harmful aspect of Christianity.
The more interesting question is to what degree is our human sense of conciousness is in control of how our minds function. Is conciousness just along for the ride, or is our sense of self the major governing factor in how we make the choices we do? And if it is a mixture, what can we do to change the balance... and what can we do to mitigate the control others have over us through exploiting our subconcious decision making processes?
For all that the brain is deterministic, it's also capable of learning and altering its behaviour. There is a freedom of sorts that we can aim for; the freedom of our concious minds to over-ride those subconcious and near-automated decision making processes that influence the choices we make.
If you reject the possibility of mind-body dualism (and as there is no evidence for dualism, there's no reason not to reject it) then human decision making in all its aspects must arise from the physical behaviour of the brain. Thus, true Free Will is impossible. We all do what we do because of the way our brains function. A secular, scientific society like ours should question Free Will openly in teh same way we question theism.
So why is it so readily accepted as existing? Free Will is such a big deal in the West because it has been used as a central plank of Christianity for centuries. God gave us Free Will (or we took it ourselves by eating that apple) and it's this Free Will that allows us to choose to worship him and to have faith in him (ironically). Without it, getting into Heaven would effectively be down to cuircumstances of birth, which kinda goes against the idea of Jesus sacrificing himself so that any one of us can be Saved.
This has carried forward into secular society and a belief in Free Will has justified not only liberalism and consumerism, but also allows advertising and political news management. Without Free Will, the establishment would have to question whether or not we actually can freely choose who we vote for or whether or not we get drunk every Friday. It would also change the way our politics work - a deterministic mind is easy pickings for political spin and news management, and without the defence of "anyone can freely choose to ignore what we say, and freely choose to vote against us" this behaviour would be seen as highly undemocratic.
I would suggest that it is this faith in the idea of Free Will that is the most harmful aspect of Christianity.
The more interesting question is to what degree is our human sense of conciousness is in control of how our minds function. Is conciousness just along for the ride, or is our sense of self the major governing factor in how we make the choices we do? And if it is a mixture, what can we do to change the balance... and what can we do to mitigate the control others have over us through exploiting our subconcious decision making processes?
For all that the brain is deterministic, it's also capable of learning and altering its behaviour. There is a freedom of sorts that we can aim for; the freedom of our concious minds to over-ride those subconcious and near-automated decision making processes that influence the choices we make.
