The problem of free will

Our search for free will seems straight forward. Do I have the liberty to choose what I want? If yes, I have a free will, if not, I don’t. So our free will exists, at least when we experience freedom in choice.

This conclusion is true if our will indeed is (the experience of) freedom in choice. But what if the freedom of choice is is not equal to free will?

Already at this point I remember my old hate for philosophy: it is the annoying tendency to make the obvious complex. Over time this hate has changed for pity; we are unable to know, so we have to keep asking questions. The end of philosophy is the end of questions.

Why are we unable to know?

In case of our free will the answer is simple. Our will cannot be observed like a human sense (as the eye). We cannot observe it’s functions, the beginning, the end, its coherence with other parts, etc. We even don’t know for sure what is part of our will, and what not. We don’t know how it is influenced..

..and exactly this is the reason we ask: do we have free will?

To make it worse: does our will even exist? Is it not just a categorization of

• our driving forces?
• our preference of one choice over the other?
• our clinging to what is chosen?
• our desire of execution?
• Etc.

We can try to examine our will anatomically. Even if we find one day the exact body part that is ‘our will’, technical examination does not reveal the nature, meaning and freedom of our will (these concepts cannot be observed; they exist in our mind). Worse, we still won’t know the answers to the questions. It is a mistake to think we could; it is the same as trying to see, as a result of the dissection of an eye.

So what could be true about our will is what we can think about our will:

• Our will could be (non)existent
• Our will could be (un)related to other parts in our consciousness
• Our will could be (un)related to religion
• Our will could be (un)related to freedom
• Etc.

Maybe one of the best observations of our will is given by Plato: he explains our will as horses being directed by our mind, the coachman. I (who am in the carrier that is pulled by the horses,) am directed by the interplay between the horses and coachman.

And yet, the image of Plato is not necessary complete or true. His metaphor could be the painting of a car after blindly touching several parts of it. Worse, there could also be an inside of the car. This is where religions enter the stage.

Religion reveal relations we cannot observe. Sometimes the relations are even very unexpected. So does the Bible. Philippians 2:12,13 speaks about a relation between our will, our actions, salvation and God: “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”

This explanation is dazzling. It mocks not only our idea of free will, but also our idea about causality.

The good news is that this is about the deepest, most complex explanation about our free will. The trouble is there are much more explanations about the truth of our free will; about every religion and philosopher has an opinion.

The bad news is that history has not given a mathematical, scientific or reasonable solution.

But we can find peace. In one of the explanations. For of our own good reasons.