Interesting discussion in the scientific world on whether or not humans have free will. I guess its not only a Calvinism vs. Arminianism thing! I found this section interesting:
Arguments about free will are mostly semantic arguments about definitions. Most experts who deny free will are arguing against peculiar, unscientific versions of the idea, such as that “free will” means that causality is not involved. As my longtime friend and colleague John Bargh put it once in a debate, “Free will means freedom from causation.” Other scientists who argue against free will say that it means that a soul or other supernatural entity causes behavior, and not surprisingly they consider such explanations unscientific.
These arguments leave untouched the meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions.
The definition of free will given, “consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions,” is one that certainly even the most ardent Calvinist would affirm. In other words, to exercise free will is to do what we desire at any given moment. Another interesting statement is that “Other scientists who argue against free will say that it means that a soul or other supernatural entity causes behavior…” So for some scientists, to say that a supernatural entity causes behavior is to actually affirm free will, as opposed to our choices being simply a byproduct of our chemical makeup and reactions within our bodies. Anyway, thought this was quite fascinating…you can read the entire article here: