It is rather easy to go through most of our days without coming to question our own freedom of agency. It is rarely the case that when faced with a choice like what to spread on our morning toast, we would feel like it was something out of our control. However, when analysed, this feeling or intuition of free will seems weaker and weaker a possibility not to be examined further.

The topics of free will and human agency have been present in intellectual discussion and subjects of philosophical speculation for a long time. In the medieval period in the Middle East, the Kalam debates came with an alternative wave of rationalism, addressing topics such as God’s nature, divine attributes and free will. These disputations involved systematic theological argumentations, and became important endeavours to rationalise religious commitments and (in this case muslim) beliefs. I find it to be a very interesting and common sense approach to try to provide some intellectual context and well-justified reasons for adopting any worldview. I feel like there is not enough questioning going on in general regarding these topics. People are willing to take a leap of faith just a tad bit too easily, hoping the easy answers of any given authority (religions, governments, politicians, fitness crazes… you name it) will fix their problems and feeling of bewilderment. I do think it is fine to search for things provided by these institutions, namely a community and a sense of belonging, but not without having questioned their legitimacy and tried to rationalise one’s own reasons for adopting a certain set of beliefs. Blind trust brings with it ignorance and an element of danger. It is harder to be manipulated when having done one’s own research. So, I think the Kalam discussions was really getting at something with this strategy.

The debates on free will were also building a kind of framework to make it easier to distinguish where human agency would fit in the picture of a monistic religion with an all-powerful God. If we have the ability to create our own actions, as many religions claim, how can God be all-powerful? One of the key doctrines appearing in the debates was that humans have some form of free will and that we as humans are morally and ethically responsible for our own actions. Consequently, our actions are not predetermined. It is smart to include an element of free agency to the system, as it is hard to convince people of their responsibility of their own actions if they do not see them as their own in the first place. Why would God punish us for actions that were predetermined (by himself)?

These questions remain puzzling. Easy answers to big questions like these provided by any authority should strike us as red flags. I think we should all struggle with big topics on our own and look at them from a spectrum of perspectives before settling with a stance. Even when taken, the stance should be held with a grip not too tight to not leave room for refinement. I think our professor agrees with my statement, as in the first lecture he stated something along the following: if your whole worldview does not completely change every five years, you are not learning, thinking or growing enough.