Free will is often presented as a solution to the problem of evil by religious apologists. I believe that it is very simple to refute the type of free will (or ‘true free will’ as I put it) required to deal with the problem of evil. I will be arguing against the definition of free will that I have provided here, that is:

Free will: ‘freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention’

I will argue that the only cause of any human action is prior events, which were outside of our ultimate control. Simply: Humans obey the law of cause and effect like every other thing in our universe. This makes us essentially organic, mechanical robots, controlled solely by the laws of physics and nature (as everything else in the universe is). We are not special.

I also want to make it perfectly clear from the outset that I am not arguing that we do not have choice. We have incredible choice. Choice is defined as: ‘An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities’. There is no requirement of free-will to make choices.

I am also not arguing for fatalism. The randomness, and indeterminism of quantum physics makes the idea of fatalism completely untenable. A type of determinism with near-infinite possible outcomes, however, is almost certainly true. I will differentiate this from indeterminism, as it is theoretically possible to determine all possible outcomes from prior events, even when taking into consideration randomness.
To start, if we look at the below stories we can see the problems with free-will and responsibility starting to emerge:

1. A child is born into an abusive family, the father is an alcoholic and beats the mother in front of the child. The father also beats the child. The child grows up in this family of abuse, later, the father eventually kills the mother in front of the child. The child is traumatised. The child grows into a man, struggles to keep a job, and has a very troubled life. One day the man gets into an argument with an alcoholic wino who reminds him of his father. The man kills the wino.
2. A second child grows up in a stable happy family, grows into a well adjusted and successful man, but suffers a psychotic break from an undiagnosed mental illness. While psychotic, the man kills another man.
3. A third child grows up in a stable happy family, grows into a successful man, and is afflicted by a brain tumour. The brain tumour interrupts the man’s brain function, and causes him to act irrationally, in this state, the man kills another man.

These three scenarios all have the same outcome; a man is killed. However, in our current justice system and moral codes, the first man would be judged guilty, the second man mentally ill and not guilty, and the third man physically ill and not guilty. These judgements are based on the concept of free-will. The second and third men were not in control and thus are not responsible for their actions, while the first man had the “choice” not to murder, he was not mentally or physically ill. This is an extremely common viewpoint and is the basis for many legal decisions.

If, however, we trace the causes back, we find that neither of the three men were any more in control of their actions than another. The second and third men did not choose their conditions that led to the murders, this much is obvious. However, the first man did not choose his conditions either.

We might now ask, what were those conditions? Well, what we are actually asking is what makes a personality? What makes a person who they are? The answer is nature and nurture, a complex combination of two factors.

Why were persons 2 and 3 afflicted by their illnesses? Well, you would argue they were born with them, they did not choose them. They were in their genes and they just happened to be triggered, one in the form of a psychotic break, the other in the form of a brain tumour. Neither of these were conscious choices. How about person 1? Did person 1 choose to be born into an abusive family?

Let us now introduce person 4:

4. A child is born a sociopath, the child does not feel empathy, the child grows up and kills another man.

Did this child choose to be born a sociopath? How can we say they are ultimately responsible when they were born that way? Do we blame the parents of the child for birthing a sociopath?

At this point many people will be arguing that these people, whether born into abusive families, or born as sociopaths, still had the “choice” to kill or not kill. Many other people have been in similar situations and they did not murder. They exercised their “free will” to perform actions, thus, they are ultimately responsible. On the surface this seems correct, but the further we look into it, the clearer it is that this is wrong.

If we go back to the point of nature and nurture: Nature entails all that is natural, what your genes control, what your innate psychology is, your instincts, your chemical makeup in your brain (and any imbalances too), your hormones, etc. Nurture entails all that is environmental, all the environmental influences on your personality, all that you learn through experiences, all that is taught to you, all that you observe, all that you hear, all that you feel and touch, all that you gain from culture and upbringing, anything from the outside world that has impacted, influenced, and shaped you as a person in some way.

These two categories, nature and nurture, are what make us, us. They are what creates our personalities, they are what creates our minds and gives us our reasons and justifications for why we make choices. We are the summation of our nature, and our nurturing. We are born with an innate (and limited) personality derived from our genes (nature), which is then grown through our environment and experiences (nurture).

It would be very hard to find a person who disagrees with this.

And this is the very core of the problem with free will. Where in the above was choice exercised?

• We do not choose our parents;
• We do not choose our genes;
• We do not choose the personality we are born with, we are simply born;
• Up to the point of gaining consciousness, we have not made a single choice;
• After gaining consciousness, our choices are based on our genetic instincts, and our reactions to the environment around us (be it the womb, or later, the hospital, or the presence of our parents).
• Our personalities then develop and the natural part of our personalities (genetics) are built up by our experiences; we learn, we grow, etc.
• We never had the choice to decide what the factors were involved in creating our individual personalities. We never got to choose our genes, or our first experience.
• We never had true control of our first choice, therefore, we never truly had control of any of our subsequent choices.
• If we never chose our genes, and we never chose our first experience, and all our subsequent choices we make are based on our genes and first experience (nature and nurture), where exactly does free will come in?

If you agree with the previous points, you must conclude that we do not have free will.

At the point of our first conscious act (which is arguably around the 24^th week of pregnancy - when consciousness emerges), we were not in control of the circumstances before (i.e. we did not control or choose our genes, and we did not choose our parents, or what our mother eats, or what activities she does while pregnant). This is pretty plainly obvious.

All the child’s actions are just behaviour governed by its genetics and responses to its environment. Any of the child’s subsequent choices are also governed by these outside factors. Thus, while the child, and the person it grows into will make many choices, it never truly has free will. It is never able to make a choice that is not governed by prior causes.

Now we come back to the definition of free will:

Free will: ‘freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention’

All human action, and indeed all action in the universe is determined ultimately by prior causes. This is cause and effect. Humans are not exempt to this law.

Later in another post, I’d like to define the terms “good” and “evil” and return to the problem of evil. Nonetheless, in light of the above, religion, theology, apologists, and theists have no real solution to the problem of evil, and it counts a devastating blow to the three major monotheist religions of today.