Science: A system of knowledge based on empirical evidence and observation, often leaning toward determinism (the idea that our actions are determined by prior causes, making free will an illusion).
Religious Faith: Belief in a higher power or spiritual truths, which, in the case of Christianity, often asserts that God grants humans free will and moral responsibility.
Determinism: The belief that all events, including human actions, are caused by preceding factors, implying no real freedom of choice.
Compatibilism: The belief that free will and determinism can coexist, allowing for moral responsibility despite causal determinism.
THE ARGUMENT"Science has faith in free will" or does it?Science cannot prove that we really have free will for it admits that we might be programmed to feel we really are making decisions and have freedom. Science is grounded in testing. We can't be sent back even a second in time to see if we will choose differently. Compatibilism is popular in scientific circles - but not as something that can be properly verified. It is in fact a word-play. Compatibilism is a redefinition of free will rather than an affirmation of traditional free will. It argues that even if our actions are determined by prior causes, we can still be considered "free" if we act according to our desires and intentions, as long as we aren't externally coerced. In this sense, it "fits" free will by redefining it to work within a deterministic framework, but it doesn't align with the classical idea of free will as completely uncaused or independent.So despite that point about compatibilism, it is safe to say that the denial of free will is the standard view taken by science.Christians speak as follows, "Is free will real or are we programmed by forces in our brain? If we are programmed, we cannot trust ourselves to know the truth. The Bible says we know what is right and wrong in our hearts even if we do not admit it. It is necessary for science to assume we have free will or to believe perhaps the Bible that we have it."So they are saying the Bible compels you to say you KNOW free will exists. Or it tells you you know it exists for that is where your certainty that right and wrong exist as moral categories. But few would go that far!You will be told that the Christian who says, “God said I have free will”, is better off than the unbelieving scientist who merely assumes it. It is allegedly more scientific to believe a testimony from God than to merely assume it. But what if a witch reports revelations from pagan gods such as Venus that we have free will? There is no improvement. It is better to assume free will after all. It is better to simply assume it for if you assume a testimony is correct about free will you are assuming anyway and making it more complicated. Keep it simple and science requires that you do so.What is the scientific answer to all that?In regard to free will, not having it does not mean we cannot trust what we do and perceive.A basic life form has no perception but still has trustworthy perception to a sufficient degree.If a microscope was made by chance it could still be reliable. How unlikely that is not the point. It can happen.The scientist knows that there are non-scientific realities such as love. He cannot prove it. He also knows there is no reason to assume there are non-physical realities outside of our experience such as God or free will.Some scientists do believe in a form of free will. You do not need to believe that free will as in having the freedom to be moral or immoral is necessary for you to trust what you sense and discover. There are other versions.You do not need a version based on God or religiously relevant.