Free Will

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Free will has always been a fascinating philosophical discussion both within and outside of religion. There is a schism between Christians who believe in predestination and those who believe in free will, and those who oddly believe both are possible.

 

I never really thought about free will as a christian, but growing up in an anti-Calvinist church I was taught that human beings have free will which is the cause of sin and suffering.

 

Ultimately the problem of evil becomes a problem of free will. How can free will exist in conjunction with an all knowing, all powerful all present deity?

 

Assuming there is no God free will becomes somewhat less important. We live as though we have sovereign control over our own lives even if in reality we are products of our genes and environment.

 

I do believe we have the ability to make choices (perhaps this constitutes free will) but those choices are limited and extremely influenced by outside sources. For instance we have preferences we cannot control. Our abilities and talents (and lack of) are very largely out of our control. The type of brain we have - right or left thinking, healthy or damaged. Our personalities. In fact most of what makes us “who we are”, the unique individual our society teaches us to value is outside of our control. And it’s the summation of these things that dictate what sort of choices we make.

 

I also think the question tends to treat humanity like a group of distinct individuals when we are a group of interacting parts. Like interlocking gears others’ actions affect me and I affect those around me with mine.

 

I think free will is a spectrum and I am on the negative end of it. Many people think that without free will people use the “I can’t help it” excuse to avoid consequences for their actions. I disagree. Consequences (or punishments) are not dependent upon free will. Really it’s the opposite. The earth cannot help but spin on its axis around the sun and as consequence we have days and years. Even if a person cannot help but kill others, this does not enable them to escape punishment for it.

 

Don’t think I am against the idea of individualism. We are each unique and it’s the only life we will have. Life isn’t fair and not everyone will be happy but societal changes towards tolerance and individualism seem to improve the quality of life for more people.

 

I think free will is a very complex subject and would like to hear the views of others here. What were (or are) your views on free will as a Christian? How have they changed? How would you define free will? How does the subject of free will relate to morality?

[Overcame Faith]

What were (or are) your views on free will as a Christian?

 

As a Christian, I believed that on matters relating to following God's will, we had perfect free will. Thus, if there was a choice between doing something that was sinful or not, we had perfect free will on that matter and we were completely responsible for the choices we made. The point of debate was what was an action that was sinful. Take the matter of suicide. While I believed that in a vacuum an individual had a choice about whether to kill themselves or not, even as a Christian I knew there were people who committed suicide who really had no choice in the matter. They may have had such intense psychological problems that they had no real free will. Therefore, I was never in the camp of many Christians who blatantly said without reservation that every person who commits suicide has a one way ticket straight to hell. This really helped me deal with the families or friends of suicide victims who were in my Sunday School class because when they asked if I thought their relative or friend was in hell, I could honestly say that I didn't think so. It helped a lot of people to hear this, especially when other Christians would say in their best fake loving voice that, yes, I am afraid they are.

 

How have they changed?

 

My views on free will have changed since leaving Christianity because I no longer believe that sin exists. Since my Christian view of free will was dependent on the definition of sin and I no longer believe there is any such thing as sin, I have had to re-think the topic. My re-thinking is not completed, so over time with more thought on the matter, my views may change. However, for now, I tend to believe that we have much less free will than I had previously thought. A lot of reading has led me to believe that many of what we previously thought were choices, may have been hard-wired into us. For example, while we have no free will in whether we will become hungry if we go without food for long enough, I always thought that we did have the free will to choose what we eat. But if you have ever craved some kind of particular food item so badly that you just had to have it, that might have been your body demanding that you eat that particular food so it could get the nutrient from that food that it needs.

 

Along the lines of eating, take the example of an extremely obese person. Many hold such people in contempt believing they had the choice of whether to eat so much that they became so morbidly obese. I don't see it that way. There must be something going on inside their bodies that causes such a problem. It is hard for me to believe that anyone would choose to weigh 450 pounds when they are only 5'5" tall. Now I'm not talking about someone like me who has a little more of a beer belly than I would like to have. I could easily choose to cut down on the beer or the extra helping of gravy over my mashed potatoes and lose those few extra inches in my waist line.

 

How would you define free will?

 

One's ability to use his/her conscious mind to override one's subconscious (or hardwired) inclinations. I am coming to believe more and more that much or possibly most of what we do is somehow hardwired into us. For example, I was reading a psychological account of a business that was on two upper floors of the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. After the North Tower was struck, the group in this company who were on the 88th floor all left. However, the vast majority of those in the group in this company who were on the 89th floor, stayed put and, unfortunately, all parished when the plane struck the South Tower. The explanation for the different actions was that we human beings tend to act in a group mentality during times of danger. Each individual tends to look to the entire group and will generally react like others in the group are reacting. The group on the 88th floor had an individual who insisted loudly and persistently for people to abandon the building and once a few started leaving, the rest of the group left too. Apparently, no one on the 89th floor left and so all of the individuals did as the rest of the group did.

 

Our free will is our ability and willingness to override such hardwired impulses as described above. We can do it, but we don't always do it.

 

How does the subject of free will relate to morality?

 

Not as much as I used to think it did. I believe that a lot of our moral "choices" are hardwired in us through the evolutionary process as well as cultural norms. Could someone during Old Testament times have made a moral choice that slavery was wrong? Sure they could have. However, whether they would is a whole different matter. With the teachings in the Old Testament which legitimized slavery and did so through its condonation by god, it is more probable that people would not even make a choice beyond this cultural norm.

[J.W.]

I regards to freewill.. I find it interesting that all animals have a form of freewill.

 

If we are part of the great moral test of God then why did animals get dragged into it? Why can an animal attack a human being? Animals don't have a soul and therefore do not need freewill. I was just watching when animals attack and it hit me. I know its not the main purpose of this post but I just thought I would toss that out there since we are on the subject

[Guest Valk0010]

As a christian pretty my opinions were typical.

 

Nowadays, I think free will is nothing but the ability to choose from different things. So yes animals have free will, and also it certain instances free will can be interchangeable to instinct.

[Jedah]

Pick a number between 1-10000000

 

Whats that? You picked 53901?

 

Sorry, the correct answer was 9999912.

 

You will now be shot.

 

What? What do you mean that's unfair?

 

After all, you chose the number 53901 by your own free will.

[grapeonthevine]

I think free will is a very complex subject and would like to hear the views of others here. What were (or are) your views on free will as a Christian? How have they changed? How would you define free will? How does the subject of free will relate to morality?

 

 

When I was a christian, free will was tied directly to salvation, and actually ended up being a huge problem for me. I was even considering becoming a Calvinist, because logically it made more sense despite not appealing to me on an emotional or humanitarian level. I believed in free will, inasmuch as I believed it was my uninfluenced choice to become a christian. I also think I could make a better case for that than most. If you read the testimony I just posted, you'll see why. However, if it was my choosing (which is a verb and an action, as in something I had to DO) that really sealed the deal, so to speak, on my salvation then I couldn't have chosen, because the Bible is clear that salvation is strictly a gift from God and doesn't depend on individuals at all. So, because I felt like I acted freely, I believed in free will, and believed that love could only be love if it was free and willing.

 

Now, I'm more in line with what was already said about how environment and nature combine to steer an individual toward certain decisions. I believe people have a will, perhaps not 'free' will, but a will nonetheless. I'd also like to throw in Nietzsche's opinion that everyone is driven by a will to power. That is, people (and he included animals, all systems actually conscious and otherwise) are driven by a will to power, or control. As individuals at least, we want to believe we are in control, if not of others at least of ourselves, and that is really what drives decision making processes, not a will to survival or a will to happiness, but power in some regard.

 

Certainly things are inter-related and inter-dependent. To say I am who I am now because I chose it seems silly. Take the fact that I write, for example. Am I talented because I chose to focus on it and so developed it? Or did I focus on it because I had some kind of talent for it, regardless of its source? I honestly don't know. Or for example say you're at the grocery store choosing between which kind of cereal to buy (always a touch decision for me). Now whether you buy froot loops or cheerios or whatever else you would buy comes down to "free" will, in other words, you're just going to buy whatever you want. But on the other hand, what you choose is going to be largely because it tastes good to you. Now at what point did you choose that say apple jacks tastes better to you than any other cereal? So you can make a choice of your own will, but it's influenced (and therefore not 'free') by all kinds of factors.

 

That's kind of how I define it too. Free would imply free of all influences that aren't under one's control. Free will would result in almost arbitrary decisions. It's not necessarily a good thing, though for some reason plenty of people insist that they have free will, and can do what they want. I, for one, am glad that's not exactly true.

 

As for how it relates to morality? Morality is subjective and shaped by one's culture, also by the will to power again, and based on human empathy which occurs in varying degrees in different people (those incapable of it would be sociopathic). Good and evil can't always be easily discerned, so one's will in choosing between the two is not always pertinent. Much of it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis while accounting for one's personal capacity for human empathy and dependency on others. In broader moral questions, like political questions, one's education has a huge influence. So, free will, I would say, has a minimal relationship to morality.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Thank you for the responses I see we all went through similar thought processes. I always thought it was much more difficult of a thing as a Christian. Because many non-Christians I knew weren't choosing to not follow god, they were doing the best they could with what they had to be good people. And I never could, by choosing it, love god more than my family and friends.

 

A lot of people feel as though their deconversion wasn't something they chose. The kind of person they are made it inevitable. I feel this way myself.

 

I always thought it was interesting to watch Christians argue over free will because its very difficult to accommodate the contradicting theologies.

[RankStranger]

It's always struck me as odd that so many arguments made by evangelical christians hinge on "free will", when the words "free will" are found nowhere in their bible... and several passages in their bible directly contradict the notion.

[NotBlinded]

Pick a number between 1-10000000

 

Whats that? You picked 53901?

 

Sorry, the correct answer was 9999912.

 

You will now be shot.

 

What? What do you mean that's unfair?

 

After all, you chose the number 53901 by your own free will.

I love it!

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It's always struck me as odd that so many arguments made by evangelical christians hinge on "free will", when the words "free will" are found nowhere in their bible... and several passages in their bible directly contradict the notion.

God hardened pharoahs heart

 

i.e. God so badly wanted to send more plagues, so he has to make the pharaoh want to keep them for longer so he could inflict torture on the egyptians.

[★ Citsonga ★]

It's always struck me as odd that so many arguments made by evangelical christians hinge on "free will", when the words "free will" are found nowhere in their bible... and several passages in their bible directly contradict the notion.

 

Leviticus 22:18

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;

 

Leviticus 22:21

And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.

 

Leviticus 22:23

Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.

 

Leviticus 23:38

Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD.

 

Numbers 15:3

And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the LORD, of the herd or of the flock:

 

Numbers 29:39

These things ye shall do unto the LORD in your set feasts, beside your vows, and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your meat offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings.

 

Deuteronomy 12:6

And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

 

Deuteronomy 12:17

Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:

 

Deuteronomy 16:10

And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:

 

Deuteronomy 23:23

That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

 

2 Chronicles 31:14

And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter toward the east, was over the freewill offerings of God, to distribute the oblations of the LORD, and the most holy things.

 

Ezra 1:4

And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.

 

Ezra 3:5

And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD.

 

Ezra 7:13

I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

 

Ezra 7:16

And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem:

 

Ezra 8:28

And I said unto them, Ye are holy unto the LORD; the vessels are holy also; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the LORD God of your fathers.

 

Psalm 119:108

Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.

 

 

[ilovemybrain]

I just read a really good novel that explores free will. "The Executor" by Jesse Kellerman. A struggling philosophy grad student who is enamored with Nietzsche answers an ad for a "conversationalist wanted" by a rich older woman, who becomes somewhat of a benefactress to him but things get kind of hairy when a greedy relative shows up.

[MagickMonkey]

I don't think free will exists in an absolute sense, but I do think we have something that approximates free will so closely that we might as well consider it real. Of course, we have free will to varying degrees.

 

 

Pick a number between 1-10000000

Whats that? You picked 53901?

 

Sorry, the correct answer was 9999912.

 

You will now be shot.

 

What? What do you mean that's unfair?

 

After all, you chose the number 53901 by your own free will.

 

 

Fuckin awesome!!!. Reminds me of that one scene in the South Park movie when new arrivals in hell are confused about being there because of how faithful they were, and were told that it was the Jehova's Witnesses that were correct(I think).

[DesertBob]

My beliefs haven't changed since I deconverted.

 

We are free to choose anything -- but as a practical matter some choices have undesirable consequences. The fact that the repertoire of choices that make sense for me in any situation is generally small, doesn't actually change the fact that I am still free to act as I choose.

 

I have never understood the hoo-raw surrounding this topic, nor the desire to veer into existential hand wringing theoretical territory. People seem keen to justify making no choice at all, or to at least escape responsibility for the choices they do make. I can't see any other reason to beat this argument to death.

 

Yes, sometimes all available choices suck and I have to choose the least suckage, but this doesn't mean I have no free will, just because some (or sometimes all) choices are hard. To me that's a separate issue that doesn't speak to free will. It may speak to (in)justice, limits of resources or time, conflicting needs or requirements, etc., but it doesn't speak to the fact that I still have choices.

 

[shrug]

 

Maybe what I'm saying is that free will is real, but somewhat theoretical in practice?

[HRDWarrior]

My thoughts as a christian were very Calvanistic in nature, and I believed you were either chosen or not. A rather thorough study on predestination lead me to think that way (even though I had been raised originally in your typical free-will thinking).

 

 

Currently, I don't think there is such a thing as "free will" - but for different reasons. Primarily, the idea of "free-will" implies that something else will make my decisions for me, and specifically something super natural. Since I don't think there is anything out there that can force me to do anything, then the entire idea is non-existent.

 

Of course, many things from basic instincts and needs to complex social situations may strongly influence my decisions, they do not make them for me. I can choose to break the law - I may find the consequences undesirable and therefore decide it's not worth my while, but that doesn't stop me from doing it if I really want to. My choices in life are my own - yes, there are things out of my control, but my abilities to sway these things are probably greater than I sometimes realize (or want to admit lol!). Even a food craving - I've yet to find one I absolutely cannot resist.

 

What's the opposite of "free-will?" If there is such a thing as free will, then it must have an opposite and since I do not see either as being correct, I don't think either is.

 

 

This is one of those topics that seems to really be a christian-induced idea that I don't recall seeing in philosophies that I have found valuable. Can't recall Confucius talking about it....

[DesertBob]

This is one of those topics that seems to really be a christian-induced idea that I don't recall seeing in philosophies that I have found valuable. Can't recall Confucius talking about it....

Now that you mention it I believe you are correct, at least with respect to how large the topic looms in the Christian world. I think the interest is driven by the implications for evangelism. If people are predestined to the point where the decision isn't really a product of their personal will, then taken to its logical conclusion, why bother to evangelize at all? They are going to believe, or not, and you can't influence it because it's predestined.

 

If the church takes evangelism as a serious responsibility then it will direct a lot of resources to that task -- so it's important to answer the question of whether the church simply needs to be in place to receive the people who will naturally flow to it, or whether it needs to actively proselytize. From the viewpoint of us freethinkers, clearly believing in predestination is to our benefit -- less annoying Bible-thumping doorbell ringers ;-) Also, the church will tend to grow less.

 

Of course in the fairyland atmosphere of the church it is possible to hold hybrid views, such as, we're predestined in the sense that an all-knowing God will be unsurprised at who believes and who doesn't; but Christians are still the mechanism by which belief comes, and therefore you have to cough up $$ / time / effort to make it happen. Which actually makes a kind of half-baked sense, because if unbelievers have no actual free will in whether or not to believe, it follows that believers have no actual free will in whether or not to solicit said belief.

 

Makes your head spin when you think about it too much.

[Ouroboros]

Some philosophical readings about Free Will: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

And believe that Plato talked some about free will, or intentions, so I'm not sure it's only a Christian concept.

 

I also think I've seen reference to discussions of free will in both Hinduism and Buddhism.

[PocketAces]

What were (or are) your views on free will as a Christian? How have they changed? How would you define free will? How does the subject of free will relate to morality?

My views when I was a Christian lead me to a co-existence with God and ourselves but ultimately God was in control. It evolved over the course of being a Christian. For awhile it was 100 percent free-will and then towards the end, it was what I described in the first sentence. In other words, God's Will cannot be changed which made where everyone is going after they die unable to be known since even Jesus said there will be those that will say they know me, and they will be turned away.

 

My views now of free-will being a non-believer is, we make free-choices in a deterministic reality that is defined as the way our reality is. We are a product of our environment so we make choices that are based in our deterministic environment. Our evolutionary makeup determines what free-will choices we make.

 

The thing is...in the end, nothing much has changed. God was taken out of my definition and instead science/things that can be proven was replaced and nothing more.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I think free will is a very complex subject and would like to hear the views of others here. What were (or are) your views on free will as a Christian? How have they changed? How would you define free will? How does the subject of free will relate to morality?

 

There are so many different levels of free will that could be considered. One of which you mentioned, that I have never thought of before was within the human mechanics, and their functions. Looking at the Bible, freewill in some sense is laid out early with Cain and sinfulness. Then, we have highly regarded kings, such as David, doing things immoral with this dynamic presence of God mixed around it, causing one to see 'a choice', or free will. Then we have another picture of God taking away freewill in a sense with divine interventions, such as Pharaoh, Jonah, and the whole clan of Israel in some instances.

 

We have on a sidenote, freewill with consequences, and freewill without consequences. David, even though he stole, wasn't punished. So, here, we have an addiction to the concept of a basic freewill which underlines righteous acts. So, now, a righteous act acted within freewill, yet was technically sinful, is not punished. So, this makes freewill parent to righteousness, and righteousness parent to freewill, yet they each have a distinct individual status.

 

Enter Jesus. Jesus according to the Gospels 'had a will'. So, now, this man, has a will from God, knows it, prays for himself to not have to be the one to do it, yet overcomes himself and finishes his will from God. Jonah on the other spectrum didn't have as much power over himself and his life was turned upside down until he did what God's will was for him.

 

Judas is a good example too. Someone had to be the 'son of perdition' and though it fell on Judas, if not him, then someone would have to filled this role. Some would argue that Judas had a choice, yet I argue how could he have a choice if the Son of God was with him from beginning to end. To me, it sounds more like fulfillment than choice.

 

Yet, everyday we have choices in the society we live in, yet everyday, thousands of miles away, there are still some who have no choice at all, which makes freewill theology totally negate for them. What about demon possessed people from the bible? Did they choose to be possessed?

 

It's a double standard. One part says we should overcome Satan, evil, sin; and the next part says shows demons possessing people and when released from them, being 'normal' again? Where is freewill in this?

 

So, my answer. We have freewill to make choices, believe in God, or to not believe in God; yet, we do not have a choice about the number that will believe and not believe. I see it as an always unbalancing scale.

[Legion]

I must have cognitive dissonance when it comes to the subject of free-will. I think every event unfolds by necessity, and simultaneously I think we live in an open universe where more than one future is possible.

[Phanta]

People hold inconsistent thoughts all the time without experiencing cognitive dissonance. You don't seem too stressed out.

 

Neat idea to ponder! It's exciting to wonder how both could be true. No dissonance here, either, just curiosity.

 

Phanta

[★ Citsonga ★]

How one defines "free will" makes a big difference. If we're talking about an absolute "free will" that is not affected by any personal limitation or outside influence, then of course we don't have it. On the other hand, if we're talking about a "free will" that simply means that we make our own decisions from a range of options, then of course we have it.

 

In my experience, I was raised in a "free will" version of christianity, but later moved closer to the "predestination" camp. What struck me about online debates about the subject is the way both sides seem to misunderstand the other. Predestination proponents often treat free will in the absolute sense mentioned above, even though most free will proponents are talking about the second version above. Likewise, free will proponents often treat predestination as if every single detail in a person's life is supposedly preordained, even though most predestination proponents do believe that we have an element of choice in non-salvation related details.

 

The problem with the whole free will vs predestination debate is that there is biblical support for both sides. Both sides latch onto a particular set of passages and reinterpret others to fit, and then attack the other side for taking their reinterpreted passages more literally.

 

An all-knowing, all-powerful god could have written a much more coherent and consistent book than the buybull.

[Guest Valk0010]

I must have cognitive dissonance when it comes to the subject of free-will. I think every event unfolds by necessity, and simultaneously I think we live in an open universe where more than one future is possible.

Well free will is only the ability to choose something, so maybe that is some causal motivator of some sort.

[DesertBob]

Some philosophical readings about Free Will: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

 

And believe that Plato talked some about free will, or intentions, so I'm not sure it's only a Christian concept.

 

I also think I've seen reference to discussions of free will in both Hinduism and Buddhism.

My point wasn't that it's a uniquely Christian question, only that Christians are unique in that their interest isn't so abstract or philosophical; it's seems to me at least that it's a uniquely urgent question they want to get satisfying answers for. Not only to allocate resources, or not, to evangelism, as I mentioned, but it also speaks to personal guilt / responsibility to speak out / insert oneself in other people's business.

 

Although we like to rant here about obnoxious evangelizing and proselytizing by Christians, the truth is that many -- probably most -- Christians don't enjoy doing it or even supporting the more aggressive forms of it, at least not with the enthusiasm the free will-embracing churches would wish they did. To the extent you can show that there's an element of predestination then you can be more sanguine about Uncle Fred not coming to Christ, potentially because you were called to speak up about it and didn't. To the extent you can say free will is in play, you can goad more church members into passing out tracts or knocking on doors or at least dropping annoying hints to their friends and relatives over their souls -- despite the fact that most of those members are instinctively uncomfortable doing so, as well they should be.

 

The thing that drives Christian proselytizing is an unusual emphasis on exclusivity, inerrantist / literalist Bible interpretations, and belief in free will. That, and the need to bolster a dwindling membership.

 

Islam seems a bit different. I wonder if they believe they are predestined to be Muslims (through birth perhaps?) and thus seem more interested in just killing people who disagree with them rather than getting them to convert. Islam is growing primarily through population growth in Muslim countries, so perhaps they don't feel the need to feed the mill with new converts -- it just happens at this point in history even if they do no recruiting at all. The only need to recruit is to get suicide bombers and other infiltrators in non-Muslim locations. (Of course Muslims in predominantly non-Muslim countries like the US have more of an outreach perspective because they want to feel less of a minority in that country, thus motivating them a little differently).

 

Buddhists and Hindus seem disinterested in evangelism and are relatively fatalistic, so their interest in free will seems limited to proving it to be an illusion. They are content with more of a "build it and they will come" vibe.

 

My $0.02 plus inflation, for what it's worth ...