04 Mar '19 03:17>
I don't think the concept of "free will" applies convincingly or effectively to religious beliefs. I think it is weak from the psychological point of view and demonstrates a faulty take on human nature.
People realize that they believe in supernatural things; they don't decide to believe them.
People who realize they no longer believe in supernatural things, having believed them before, experience this as a realization - or even a process of realizing what it is they do and do not actually believe - and not a matter of making a decision as an act of "free will".
When I was a Christian and believed what Christians do [which is not the topic here, by the way], I did not have the "free will" to not believe in the supernatural things that are interwoven with Christian beliefs. Once I had lost that faith, I could not somehow deploy my "free will" to decide to reinstate that faith.
No one can use "free will" to decide to believe in the Hindu deities. They can use "free will" to decide to investigate and expose themselves to Hindu beliefs but, unless the realization that these supernatural beings and phenomena have taken hold in their psyche occurs and they coincide in some way with their instincts, there is no amount of "free will" that can enable a person to simply make a decision to believe them.
Belief in supernatural causality and "free will" do not have the relationship that religionists seem to think they do. Nor are religionists persuasive when they contend that not having a certain belief in supernatural causality is immoral and worthy of punishment.
What bearing are these claims (of immorality) and threats (of supernatural revenge and punishment) supposed to have on the "free will" of someone who is not a member of their religious group?
People realize that they believe in supernatural things; they don't decide to believe them.
People who realize they no longer believe in supernatural things, having believed them before, experience this as a realization - or even a process of realizing what it is they do and do not actually believe - and not a matter of making a decision as an act of "free will".
When I was a Christian and believed what Christians do [which is not the topic here, by the way], I did not have the "free will" to not believe in the supernatural things that are interwoven with Christian beliefs. Once I had lost that faith, I could not somehow deploy my "free will" to decide to reinstate that faith.
No one can use "free will" to decide to believe in the Hindu deities. They can use "free will" to decide to investigate and expose themselves to Hindu beliefs but, unless the realization that these supernatural beings and phenomena have taken hold in their psyche occurs and they coincide in some way with their instincts, there is no amount of "free will" that can enable a person to simply make a decision to believe them.
Belief in supernatural causality and "free will" do not have the relationship that religionists seem to think they do. Nor are religionists persuasive when they contend that not having a certain belief in supernatural causality is immoral and worthy of punishment.
What bearing are these claims (of immorality) and threats (of supernatural revenge and punishment) supposed to have on the "free will" of someone who is not a member of their religious group?