George Ortega,

Nick Vale

Chandler Klebs


Creating a world without blame and guilt

The world's first, and already successful*  initiative, including two TV shows, to popularize the refutation of free will 

*How it happened 

Our World's top four minds, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein each rejected the notion of a human free will.

John Searle, the13th ranked post-1900 philosopher, says that our world overcoming the free will illusion "would be a bigger revolution in our thinking than Einstein, or Copernicus, or Newton, or Galileo, or Darwin -- it would alter our whole conception of our relation with the universe." 

The Washington Post, The New York Times, Psychology Today, Los Angeles Times, The Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, USA Today, The Telegraph, Time Magazine, Scientific American, NPR Radio, The Economist, and Science Magazine  all affirm that free will is an illusion.



Exploring the Illusion of Free Will is two TV shows - WHITE PLAINS NY TV and NYC LIVE CALL-IN TV,  several books - Mine and  Enel's,  and Chandler's one meetup - NYC, this website, Internet video and audio -  YOU TUBE  iTUNES AUDIO PODCAST  PUBLIC DOMAIN VIDEOS & MP3s, and a blog - EXOGENOUS AGENCY

Quick Links to the YouTube Episodes: 01-10  11-20  21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  61-70  71-80  81-90 91-100  101-110  111-120  121-130  131-140  141-150  151-160  161-170  171-180  181-190  191-200  201-210  211-216

Quick Links to the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters: ( by titleIntro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...


Home    Contact

 iTunes Audio Podcast
 Public Domain Video at Internet Archive
RSS  Mp3 Audio at Internet Archive

Episodes on YouTube
Full YOU TUBE Collection

Site Features

Free Will Refutations in Major Publications


Free Will Refuted in the Blogs


Free Will Refuted on YouTube


Recent books for the public and academia refuting free will


Edited and Revised Transcripts of the First Eighteen Episodes


Quotes Disaffirming Free Will and Affirming Determinism by the Famous


Absurd Free Will Defenses by Major Institutions and Publications Who Should Know Better


Claiming credit for public awareness that free will is an illusion


More Featured Episodes

10. Why Change as the basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

13. Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

16. Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17. Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

26. Because Essential Elements of Every Decision are Stored in Our Unconscious, Free Will is Impossible.

38. The Messenger and I Have Evolved Human Consciousness

50. Freud Popularized the Unconscious.  Ortega is Popularizing Unconscious Will

60. Ten Ways to Refute Free Will


Landmark Coverage Refuting Free Will


USA Today - "Why you don't really have free will by Jerry Coyne January 1, 2012

"The debate about free will, long the purview of philosophers alone, has been given new life by scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the brain works. And what they're finding supports the idea that free will is a complete illusion."

Time Magazine - "Think You're Operating on Free Will? Think Again" by Eben Harrell July 2, 2010

"In an intriguing review in the July 2 edition of the journal Science, published online Thursday, Ruud Custers and Henk Aarts of Utrecht University in the Netherlands lay out the mounting evidence of the power of what they term the 'unconscious will.'...John Bargh of Yale University, who 10 years ago predicted many of the findings discussed by Custers and Aarts in a paper entitled "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being," called the Science paper a "landmark — nothing like this has been in Science before."

The New York Times - "Your Move: The Maze of Free Will" by Galen Strawson July 22, 2010

"Some people think that quantum mechanics shows that determinism is false, and so holds out a hope that we can be ultimately responsible for what we do. But even if quantum mechanics had shown that determinism is false (it hasn’t), the question would remain: how can indeterminism, objective randomness, help in any way whatever to make you responsible for your actions? The answer to this question is easy. It can’t."

The Atlantic - "The Brain on Trial" by David Eagleman July/August 2011

"In modern science, it is difficult to find the gap into which to slip free will—the uncaused causer—because there seems to be no part of the machinery that does not follow in a causal relationship from the other parts."

The Telegraph - "Neuroscience, free will and determinism: 'I'm just a machine'" by Tom Chivers October 12, 2010

"The philosophical definition of free will uses the phrase 'could have done otherwise'... "As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'."

The Guardian - "Guilty but not responsible?" by Rosiland English May 29, 2012

"The discovery that humans possess a determined will has profound implications for moral responsibility. Indeed, Harris is even critical of the idea that free will is "intuitive": he says careful introspection can cast doubt on free will. In an earlier book on morality, Harris argues 'Thoughts simply arise in the brain. What else could they do? The truth about us is even stranger than we may suppose: The illusion of free will is itself an illusion'"

Psychology Today - "Free Will Is an Illusion, So What?" by

If you think carefully about any decision you have made in the past, you will recognize that all of them were ultimately based on similar—genetic or social—inputs to which you had been exposed. And you will also discover that you had no control over these inputs, which means that you had no free will in taking the decisions you did.

Complete List


A brief history of determined vs. free will ideas

Cause and Effect – At about the 5th century BC, in his work On the Mind, the Greek Philosopher Leucippus penned the earliest known universal statement describing what we today understand as determinism, or the law of cause and effect

“Nothing happens at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity.”

Human Will – The concepts of will and free will are actually Christian in orgin. It was Saint Paul in his Letter to the Romans, which is dated at about 58 A.D., who first discovered this thing we call human will. He came to it by recognizing that he could not often do as much right as he wanted. Saint Paul wrote in Romans 7:15 that:

“I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t.” I do what I don’t want to – what I hate.” (Translation – The Living Bible)

Free Will -- Nothing new was said on the matter for the next few hundred years until St. Augustine grappled with the concepts of evil and justice. Saint Augustine wrote in his book De Libero Arbitrio, 386-395 A.D., (translated as “On Free Will”)

“Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been performed voluntarily.”

The problem he saw was that if human beings do not have a free will, it would be unfair for God to arbitrarily reward or punish us. St. Augustine concluded that God could not be unfair, and so he created the concept of a human free will, whereby we earn our reward or punishment by what we freely do.

Scientific concepts relating to the determined will vs. free will question

Classical Mechanics -- In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton publishes his “Laws of Motions” that mathematically describes the physical universe as acting in a mechanistic manner according to the principle of cause and effect.

Classical Mechanics is a completely deterministic theory

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- In 1925 Warner Heisenberg describes mathematically that…

We can measure the position of a particle or the momentum of a particle (momentum meaning its direction and velocity), but we cannot simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle.

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- Niels Bohr and others make the following assertions;

1) Particles do not have a simultaneous position and momentum.

2) Elementary particles behave indeterministically, and are not subject to the principle of cause and effect.

Believers in free will saw the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as providing a possibility for free will to exist. They asserted that if elementary particles behave indeterministically, they are not subject to the principle of cause and effect that prohibits free will.

But, as noted above, it eventually became apparent that indeterminism also prohibits free will.


Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, 2nd Edition Chapters

Intro. to the 2011 1st. edition 

Intro. to the 2013 2nd. edition (digital version)

1 How I came to see my causal will

2 Proving causal will in real time (omitted)

3 Morality within a causal will perspective

4 What it all means

5 We Do Not "Experience" Free Will

6 How the Hedonic Imperative Makes Free Will Impossible

7 How the Unsolicited Participation of the Unconscious Makes Free Will Impossible

8 Asking When a Child Gains it Illuminates the Incoherence of the Concept "Free Will"

9 Overcoming our Reluctance to Overcome the Illusion of Free Will

10 Why Change as the Basic Universal Process Makes Free Will Impossible

11 The Absurdity of Varying Degrees of Free Will

12 Why the Concept of Free Will is Incoherent

13 Overcoming Blame, Guilt, Envy and Arrogance by Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will

14 Why Both Causality and Randomness Make Free Will Impossible

15 Why Frankfurt's “Second Order Desires” Do Not Allow for a Free Will

16 Overcoming the Illusion of Free Will as an Evolutionary Leap in Human Consciousness

17 Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

18 Why Humans Cannot Circumvent Natural Law to Gain a Free Wil

Epilogue: How Refuting Free Will Went From  Academia to the Public Spotlight – with hyperlinked  articles in major publications – 2004-2012

Books Refuting Free Will and  Fundamental Moral Responsibility


YouTube Collection

Site Map


Chapters of the 2013 Exploring the Illusion of Free Will, Second Edition


Chapter 17.  Revitalizing Religion through Transcending the Illusion of Free Will

With religion, at least in America and probably throughout the world, as each decade goes by there are fewer and fewer people who gravitate to it – that have it as a part of their everyday life. That’s somewhat unfortunate because while some religions continue to propound certain beliefs that are outdated, divisive or otherwise harmful, there is one aspect of religion that is very beneficial to society and to us as individuals. Modern cities, suburbs and metropolitan areas are a relatively new aspect of civilization. Before that, there were mainly small towns, and before that, tribal, or other, small groups, that created a true community. One could see and relate to the same people each day, whereas in many of our cities one can walk for hours seeing only strangers.

As our civilization evolved from small towns to the cities and their suburbs, we lost a great part of that cohesion. Television and other media help bring us together in a certain way, but churches and synagogues, and other religious institutions, have traditionally been our principle means of creating communities. From that perspective, it’s unfortunate that religion is waning as it has been during recent decades. The problem is dire for many congregations. For example, the cost of maintaining their property has become so burdensome that many congregations are now forced to share their building with one or more other congregations. That’s a nice idea in a sense, but the salient point here is that because of their dwindling membership, these religious institutions are threatened, and the vehicle for community they create is threatened.

There are various reasons why so many people have moved away from religion. In Christianity, and much less so in Judaism, there is the idea that if you do certain wrongs, you’re going to be punished for the rest of eternity. As we evolve as a species, and become more intelligent and knowledgeable about our world, we think to ourselves “why would an all-loving God do this?” or “if we’re here on Earth for about eighty years, how can one justify being condemned to suffer an eternity – trillions of years, at the very least – for an act done in a day?” Sometimes churches are seen as hypocritical in the sense that they profess to champion the rights of the poor, but, when it comes to politics, many churches and other religious institutions will support policies and legislation that oppose the interests of poor populations. And it’s not just about poverty. It’s also about children’s rights, women’s rights, and various other kinds of issues. Another reason for this exodus from religion is that the traditional mythology doesn’t seem to work anymore. It’s actually counterproductive in many ways. Consider, for example, the creation story of Adam and Eve. The standard account is that Eve, the first woman, was formed from the rib of Adam, the first man. That account is derogatory to women. Lastly, relatively speaking, very little in religion has changed over the last two thousand years. So much of it does not make sense to people, and that may account, in part, for why so many of us have left religious congregations and communities. My hope and expectation is that a major change in theology – in what churches and synagogues believe and teach – might actually help bring people back to the flock, and to a religious community that is based on doing good, and being good, and improving the world. That’s, to a great extent, what religion is about.

Before going through how the idea that we don’t have a free will can help congregations bring people back, I just want to go briefly through what this idea of free will means in religion. In Christianity, most people take free will to be a premise, but when you look through the Bible, you’ll find that the issue is far from clear. For example, the first Christian documented to have questioned and challenged free will was Paul in his letter to the Romans, which is dated about 58 A.D. At 7:15, Paul writes, “I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t. I do what I don’t want to do – what I hate.” Here Paul is explaining that if he had a free will, he would be good all of the time. He knows that with a free will he would do the good that he wanted to do, and not do that evil that he doesn’t want to do. Paul had this understanding in 58 A.D.! What many people don’t realize is that the term “free will” is actually not in the Bible. It doesn’t appear in Christian theology until about 380-90 A.D. when Augustine grappled with the question of human will. It was in relation to God’s qualities. Augustine was trying to reconcile evil and justice with the premise that God is all-good, and wrote a book titled De Libero Arbitrio, which is translated as “on free will.” He actually coined the term free will. He writes, “Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been performed voluntarily.” This conclusion is based on a misunderstanding – or one interpretation – of God. One conception of God is that s/he is omni-benevolent, or all-good. The reality is that God Her/Himself in Isaiah said that he creates both good and evil. From that contradicting evidence, you can see how Augustine’s premise, upon which he based his need for a free will, is actually false, at least according to the prophet Isaiah.

The notion of free will is not central to the Bible. It’s something that is not even mentioned as a term, and is alluded to very infrequently. Many religious congregations could very realistically and authoritatively look at the question of human will, and reach a new conclusion. Many congregations now understand that the world was not created about 6,000 years ago, as the Bible would have us believe. Most congregations, I would imagine, accept the standard scientific understanding that the universe is, as far as we know, about 13.7 billion years old. It’s not uncommon for churches, denominations and congregations to look at the world through the eyes of modern science, and amend or change certain beliefs that seemed reasonable back when they were created, but no longer seem justifiable. Let’s say churches began to promote the idea that free will is an illusion. They would begin to teach that the truth is that we human beings do not have a free will, and free will is nothing more than a myth. But at the same time they would say, very rightly, that knowing this does not give us license to do as we please. Just because we’re not the authors of our acts – of our thoughts and decisions – doesn’t mean that we can shirk responsibility. What we do has consequences and we have to maintain order, rule of law, and civilization. When we are judging others and ourselves, we should remember that we were all born with faults, and that we all sin. Sin, incidentally, in its original Hebrew form, literally and simply means “missing the mark,” as when one is shooting an arrow at a target.

Religions very rightly teach that because we’re all flawed in various ways, it is wise to forgive each other and ourselves for the invariable mistakes that we will make. But to the extent that we understand that we are not the authors of our thoughts, what churches and synagogues could teach is that we’re instruments of God. That would certainly fit within their theology. Because we are not the authors of what we do, we now have every rationale to be more understanding toward each other and ourselves, and hold each other and ourselves innocent. That’s major. If what we do is not really up to us, we’re all fundamentally innocent. If we’re just basically manifesting the will of God or fate, then when we do wrong there is not even a need to “forgive” others or ourselves. We might want to forgive God, or the universe, for compelling us to do wrong. That’s certainly a question to be explored. But, there is no longer any justification or rationale for blaming others or ourselves, and wanting us to be punished retributively.

A new causal will perspective would be epochal for religion. It would revitalize religion for many who long ago left the flock. When Jesus came around about 2,000 years ago, that was a major change from the very legalistic tradition of the Jewish Pharisees. Christianity was supposed to be more about acts of compassion and mercy than scrupulous adherence to a multitude of laws. Since that time, there was Mohammad with Islam, and others with other religions transforming regions of the world. But within the Judeo-Christian context, nothing as major as our collectively overcoming the illusion of free will has happened over the last two thousand years, or perhaps ever. Overcoming the illusion of free will would represent that sea change people need, and want, if they are to return to religion. Many have moved away from conventional religion because, in too many ways, it doesn’t make sense to their lives any more. It’s unfortunate. Much of religion is ennobling; it helps people to understand the difference between right and wrong. Much of religion is very good, and very useful. The communities that religions create through the world are an invaluable service to humanity. It’s a shame that congregations are dwindling, and it’s a shame that some very important ideas that these congregations hold are so out-dated. Considering that the notion of free will is not central – remember that a term for free will is not even found in the Bible – to any biblical teaching, and it was simply Augustine’s answer to his conclusion that God can’t be blamed for anything, it is something we all could perhaps fare much better without. Often in religion, when we humans do something that is really good, we’re taught to be modest, and humble, and thank God. We’re taught that we could not have done the good we did without God’s allowing us to do it. We praise God for the good that we do, and feel gratitude for his help. But, when it comes to our doing wrong, we’re taught by religions that we shouldn’t blame God; it has to be our fault. You’ll, of course, notice the inconsistent logic in praising God when things go right, but blaming humans when they don’t. Religions teach us to blame each other and ourselves. It’s not just religion. Our legal system, our educational system, and, in fact, our whole civilization, is based on this myth, this illusion, of free will.

To overcome the free will illusion would be a complete paradigm shift in what churches, synagogues, mosques and temples teach. This could be a global movement. It no longer makes sense to believe that human beings have a free will. The belief in free will leads to so much unnecessary conflict and aggression. If overcoming this belief and adopting a new understanding of our causal will – that we are basically instruments of God – would help revitalize religion, and help bring people back to congregations so that we can restore our lost sense of community, that would be wonderful. Challenging the notion of free will, a belief we’ve held for as long as we can remember, could not but attract the keen interest and attention of congregations and people who have left churches and synagogues, and may now wish to come back, if for no other reason than to explore this brand new perspective on reality – to see how their lives could change as a result of their not blaming the people in it for what they do wrong, and not feeling the pain of guilt for what they do wrong. This certainly does not mean that we will abandon morality, because we are hard-wired to seek what we believe is good, and we’re hard-wired to seek pleasure and avoid pain. We’re not going to abandon these values and our morality. But, we no longer have to blame people, and when we no longer blame people for what they do wrong, we feel closer to them. When we don’t blame ourselves for what we do wrong, we feel better about ourselves, and self-esteem is one of the four personality traits most closely correlated with happiness. Considering how science, logic, and experience so completely refute it, the notion of free will is ripe for overcoming and transcending. As religious institutions recognize that they can overcome the illusion of free will, and still promote morality, the existence of God, and the rest of their theology, religions can help create a new world.

Our world has many problems. Climate change, the global economic crisis, overpopulation and much more is going on, and we need new answers. The answers that have been coming out of politics and religion for centuries are just not suited to the reality we now face. With climate change, for example, as the world is challenged in various ways, the last thing we want to do is be at odds with each other, not doing what we need to do because we are so busy blaming ourselves and each other for what went wrong. I hope that ministers, pastors, rabbis and other clerics throughout the various religions and denominations will understand the importance of this issue of human will, and how rightly addressing it can bring people back to their congregations.

Next chapter


List of Chapters

Intro. to 2011 edition  Intro. to 2013 digital edition 1  (2 omitted)  3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   Epilogue  Books Refuting Free Will...