Free will, Science, and the Bible

[Drew Blake]

I have been wrestling with the popular concept of free will, but I am running into walls due to my premed studies.

Note: If I argue back like a none believer, it isn't because I don't believe, but because I am probing for unbiased truth.

I want to begin with the Bible if possible when receiving comments. I specifically am searching for texts that show support for free will. This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15
Texts showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B. I personally have never found any free will texts but would be happy to find some if they exist.

To follow up, I want to give detail of the issue I am dealing with philosophically.
In Biology and Behavioral science, it becomes clearly apparent that behavior is determined by outside influence and hormones and other chemical factors. These hormones are often regulated by DNA, diet, activities, and situations. This isn't a problem as long as free will trumps all of this. However, the psychiatric industry has provide clear examples that it doesn't.

Depending on whether a patient is on their medication or not, the patients in psychiatric wards can have personality changes so drastic that it could mean the difference between breaking the commandments or keeping them. It can mean the difference in wanting to loving Jesus or being spiteful towards him.

The overall issue becomes apparent as scientific research shows that our surrounding situation, the body we are born with, and the chemicals we pump though our blood are more or less the deciding factor of many choices. The scientific creationist community accepts a nature and nurture approach to this. From this logical perspective, everyone could be saved just by being given the correct body and the best environment.

The common counter argument to this is cyclic and claims God has to keep us out of his control so he doesn't interfere with our free choice. The issue even here is two fold.
1). God made Adam with his hands and technically also made you and I. This already means God has directly been involved in the body type one has. He is also directly involved in giving a person an aggressive or passive personality for example.
2) Hypothetically, given God isn't involved in interfering with "free will," Then regardless your friends and parents determined what your choices would be though their influence. Also your parents determined your personally based on contributing to your genetic material and ultimately the personality.

In conclusion,
It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce. People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice. Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have been wrestling with the popular concept of free will, but I am running into walls due to my premed studies.

Note: If I argue back like a none believer, it isn't because I don't believe, but because I am probing for unbiased truth.

I want to begin with the Bible if possible when receiving comments. I specifically am searching for texts that show support for free will. This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15
Texts showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B. I personally have never found any free will texts but would be happy to find some if they exist.

To follow up, I want to give detail of the issue I am dealing with philosophically.
In Biology and Behavioral science, it becomes clearly apparent that behavior is determined by outside influence and hormones and other chemical factors. These hormones are often regulated by DNA, diet, activities, and situations. This isn't a problem as long as free will trumps all of this. However, the psychiatric industry has provide clear examples that it doesn't.

Depending on whether a patient is on their medication or not, the patients in psychiatric wards can have personality changes so drastic that it could mean the difference between breaking the commandments or keeping them. It can mean the difference in wanting to loving Jesus or being spiteful towards him.

The overall issue becomes apparent as scientific research shows that our surrounding situation, the body we are born with, and the chemicals we pump though our blood are more or less the deciding factor of many choices. The scientific creationist community accepts a nature and nurture approach to this. From this logical perspective, everyone could be saved just by being given the correct body and the best environment.

The common counter argument to this is cyclic and claims God has to keep us out of his control so he doesn't interfere with our free choice. The issue even here is two fold.
1). God made Adam with his hands and technically also made you and I. This already means God has directly been involved in the body type one has. He is also directly involved in giving a person an aggressive or passive personality for example.
2) Hypothetically, given God isn't involved in interfering with "free will," Then regardless your friends and parents determined what your choices would be though their influence. Also your parents determined your personally based on contributing to your genetic material and ultimately the personality.

In conclusion,
It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce. People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice. Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

Hi Drew,

I appreciate your inquiry here, particularly since you're dedicated to working through your education in a prominent field. (Keep up the good work!)

Part of the problem here is first of all in delineating, and reaching a clear consensus, as to what a "Will" is, and where it is seated, or at least discerning from where (in the mind) it emerges. Then we can tackle the qualifier of "Freedom" in relation to that of the subject "the Will."

So, from your studies, what do the Behavioral Sciences say constitute the "Will," or place of motive? And do we really know all of this? How much of it is (soft-science) theory?

Then, if we turn our attention to the Bible, we might want to be clear as to how we can extract meaning about human nature from its ancient pages. If the way in which the Bible is written (being reflective of ancient epistemology and metaphysics), how might this bear upon not only how we extract its intended meaning about human motivation, but also upon what we think it is telling us?

I ask these questions because they have to be answered before we begin to assume that we think we see, or don't see, and understand, what we think we are being told.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Drew Blake]

For the Bible and extracting information, I have often used a certain logic. I would prefer the Biblical findings to have direct evidence. As for the more vague meanings that can be interpreted multiple ways, I simply admit that I don't know and store the possible information for Biblical or historical context clarification.

As for Will, I mean something outside overpowering influences such as the physical world and possibly outside of spiritual influence so that the will can be independent of temptation. This "Will" can be located in any dimension or state as long as it overpowers outside influence in determining choice. In Behavioral science, To a Behavioral scientist, Will has no observation, it is only speculation. Thus Most behavioral scientists believe in determinism where free will is just an illusion.

Free Will is an abstract concept, hopefully this helped clarify a more concrete definition of will.

 

[durangodawood]

....This "Will" can be located in any dimension or state as long as it overpowers outside influence in determining choice....

I believe in the will.
But it's often overpowered by other influences.
That doesnt make it any less real.
Just less powerful.

 

[Drew Blake]

This is nice and I respect your belief in will. Sadly I have too much evidence that support the opposite in my field and could use some evidence or reasoning so that I could believe in overpowering free will too. This concept is crucial to the foundation of my faith.

Edit: I think I missed a key portion of your statement. Free Will runs into a serious issue if it can be overpowered. It becomes a paradox of who is really in control. If free will can't overcome certain manipulations than is it truly free? For example: If my friend doesn't want to be friendly to anyone while off medication, and he is put on medication to balance his depression. As a result, due to the medication he is friendlier now. Would I call him a friendly person as a choice of his free will or the medication?

 

[durangodawood]

This is nice and I respect your belief in will. Sadly I have too much evidence that support the opposite in my field and could use some evidence or reasoning so that I could believe in overpowering free will too. This concept is crucial to the foundation of my faith.

Edit: I think I missed a key portion of your statement. Free Will runs into a serious issue if it can be overpowered. It becomes a paradox of who is really in control. If free will can't overcome certain manipulations than is it truly free? For example: If my friend doesn't want to be friendly to anyone while off medication, and he is put on medication to balance his depression. As a result, due to the medication he is friendlier now. Would I call him a friendly person as a choice of his free will or the medication?

Free doesnt mean omnipotent. The free will will always contend with other forces, and sometime get overwhelmed.

I think our own biology, especially brain chemistry, offers a huge challenge to the will. Some people have to deal with abnormalities that can only be overcome by people of truly exceptional will - if at all. Most of us would get swamped without help. If your friend chose medication in order to achieve friendliness (along with other results), then yeah, I'd say thats possibly a result of free will to some degree.

I'm not at all sure, though, that everyone is naturally endowed with a strong enough will to make typical Christian theology sensible or just.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For the Bible and extracting information, I have often used a certain logic. I would prefer the Biblical findings to have direct evidence. As for the more vague meanings that can be interpreted multiple ways, I simply admit that I don't know and store the possible information for Biblical or historical context clarification.

As for Will, I mean something outside overpowering influences such as the physical world and possibly outside of spiritual influence so that the will can be independent of temptation. This "Will" can be located in any dimension or state as long as it overpowers outside influence in determining choice. In Behavioral science, To a Behavioral scientist, Will has no observation, it is only speculation. Thus Most behavioral scientists believe in determinism where free will is just an illusion.

Free Will is an abstract concept, hopefully this helped clarify a more concrete definition of will.

Alright Drew. You make some interesting points. [I especially like how you frame the nature of free will--as an abstract concept, which I agree with.]

But let me ask this: in saying you often use a "certain logic," do you make a choice to do so? If you are not actually deliberating between possibilities and making a free choice in regard to using a particular form of logic, then are we right in assuming the decisions you make in using it come about by being forced to do so?

(Please understand that I do not intend for the questions I pose above to infer that I think you're not bright. Far to the contrary; I think you're doing some very fine, deep thinking, Drew.)

2PhiloVoid

 

[Drew Blake]

The "certain logic" I use for exploring scripture is just to prevent from being misled by emotion and others personal opinion and see reality as clearly as can be seen by the norm of society.

Regarding your point, this is an issue I also came to. It is a circular reasoning trap. If one believes in free will is false then how was I able to make this decision that it is false using my free will. Sadly this is a misinterpretation. The choice of "deciding free will is false or true" has unknown motives. In reality, I have to admit I am unaware if my decisions are from free choice or the product of my biology and circumstance.

Ultimately, it also is irrelevant for the validity or fallacy of free will to be measured by ones result of choosing a stance of free will. Here showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The "certain logic" I use for exploring scripture is just to prevent from being misled by emotion and others personal opinion and see reality as clearly as can be seen by the norm of society.

Regarding your point, this is an issue I also came to. It is a circular reasoning trap. If one believes in free will is false then how was I able to make this decision that it is false using my free will. Sadly this is a misinterpretation. The choice of "deciding free will is false or true" has unknown motives. In reality, I have to admit I am unaware if my decisions are from free choice or the product of my biology and circumstance.

Ultimately, it also is irrelevant for the validity or fallacy of free will to be measured by ones result of choosing a stance of free will. Here showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B.

To some extent I agree with what you've said about our not knowing how the mind is motivated to make a decision. Why? Because various aspects of any measure we make of the mind is constructed from the human mind, and it is the human mind which is under discussion, and if we don't truly know the deepest mysteries of the human mind, then we aren't really at a place where we can determine with absolute certainty whether or not we are simply reactive minds or autonomous ones.

In connection to what I've just said, there is also the issue of how our our perceptions of evidence play a limiting role in the shape and structure of our conclusions, particularly in the area of the so-called "soft sciences." I'd like to suggest the following journal article, Drew. Although it doesn't deal with 'free will' specifically, it does deal with some of the underlying epistemological issues involved with measuring one's evidence in qualitative research, which can affect some of the conclusions we make about the human mind:

https://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_1/html/miller.html

Now, as far as the Bible is concerned, I think if we do assume for--reasons sake--the general efficacy of the healthy human mind, we'll find that the epistemological indices in the Bible actually do infer that human beings act from 'Free Will,' even if the Biblical prose itself doesn't say so explicitly. And this can be seen piece by narrative piece from the beginning of the Bible to its end, although this isn't to say that human decision making is free in a complete sense.

So, no, I'm not going to give [complete] place to the notions of deterministic behaviorism as it may be so defined by today's 'medical establishment.' However, even as biblical Christians, we can subscribe to the notion that the human mind must have various cognitive and chemical balances in place in order to enable the fullest processing of free decisions.

 

[Drew Blake]

While I may neglect this thread during the week days, I want to close today by thank you two for you input @2PhiloVoid and @durangodawood. It while I am still in the dark as to the nature of human free will, I can now at least release the narrow notion of picking a side before the evidence is complete and clear. Perhaps there is free will perhaps not. Still, I would be absolutely intrigued to see what others have to say on this topic and continue discussion in the future.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have been wrestling with the popular concept of free will, but I am running into walls due to my premed studies.

Note: If I argue back like a none believer, it isn't because I don't believe, but because I am probing for unbiased truth.

I want to begin with the Bible if possible when receiving comments. I specifically am searching for texts that show support for free will. This doesn't include texts like "...Choose you this day who you will serve..." Joshua 24:15
Texts showing people make choices does not indicate they made them with free will just that they did action A instead of action B. I personally have never found any free will texts but would be happy to find some if they exist.

To follow up, I want to give detail of the issue I am dealing with philosophically.
In Biology and Behavioral science, it becomes clearly apparent that behavior is determined by outside influence and hormones and other chemical factors. These hormones are often regulated by DNA, diet, activities, and situations. This isn't a problem as long as free will trumps all of this. However, the psychiatric industry has provide clear examples that it doesn't.

Depending on whether a patient is on their medication or not, the patients in psychiatric wards can have personality changes so drastic that it could mean the difference between breaking the commandments or keeping them. It can mean the difference in wanting to loving Jesus or being spiteful towards him.

The overall issue becomes apparent as scientific research shows that our surrounding situation, the body we are born with, and the chemicals we pump though our blood are more or less the deciding factor of many choices. The scientific creationist community accepts a nature and nurture approach to this. From this logical perspective, everyone could be saved just by being given the correct body and the best environment.

The common counter argument to this is cyclic and claims God has to keep us out of his control so he doesn't interfere with our free choice. The issue even here is two fold.
1). God made Adam with his hands and technically also made you and I. This already means God has directly been involved in the body type one has. He is also directly involved in giving a person an aggressive or passive personality for example.
2) Hypothetically, given God isn't involved in interfering with "free will," Then regardless your friends and parents determined what your choices would be though their influence. Also your parents determined your personally based on contributing to your genetic material and ultimately the personality.

In conclusion,
It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce. People are influence to make choices in numerous ways so that one who believes they are freely making their own choice is simply unaware of all the factors that led to that choice. Yet is is sad to say that I am drawn to ask for reason not to accept this apparent truth because it questions the validity of sin and condemnation of sinners. In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

"Free Will" is what we have and everything else is what God knows.
The idea that God can know the future is a logical conundrum that
man cannot resolve with logic.

 

[Urlawyer]

Drew, I think I see what your major roadblock is, and it goes back to definitions, which 2PhiloVoid touched on but only just.

What defines "free will"?

As for Will, I mean something outside overpowering influences such as the physical world and possibly outside of spiritual influence so that the will can be independent of temptation. This "Will" can be located in any dimension or state as long as it overpowers outside influence in determining choice. In Behavioral science, To a Behavioral scientist, Will has no observation, it is only speculation. Thus Most behavioral scientists believe in determinism where free will is just an illusion.

Free Will is an abstract concept, hopefully this helped clarify a more concrete definition of will.

This explanation you gave doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. Basically, you understand that the physical body is fundamentally a mass of particles and chemical reactions that is governed by the laws of cause and effect and therefore lacks free will from any cause. You seek to rectify this by saying "will" is apart from the physical, thereby protecting it from the cause and effect reactions with which physicality is burdened. But all you've done is add more work to your load, since in order to understand what "free will" or even just "will" is, we must now define the realm of the spirit and how it functions.

Putting things inside a place called "spiritual" is counterproductive because it just adds a layer of fog to our journey. Think about it. What is it to be "non-physical"? Can you really imagine it? Are you sure? When you think of the spirit or soul, is what comes to mind something like a conscience ball of light? Light is a physical reaction, if you're removing the laws of cause and effect from the spiritual... then how would it even exist? There is no way for a human to conceptualize "spiritual" because all we know is the physical and it's all we have on which to base anything.

I'm in agreement with your Behavioral scientists in the sentiment that free will is merely a convenient illusion because I choose to ground myself in the evident physicality of my being. But if you wish to incorporate a "spiritual" world and choose to put your definition of "free will" inside it, then you're out of luck because you're at a dead end without knowing specific details about the spiritual world, and from what I know, the Bible is pretty clear that the spiritual world is out of the grasp of human minds.

My thoughts put simply: if "free will" is outside the cause and effect of reality, then how can it cause any effect within it?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes what is free will in any case.

 

[durangodawood]

If you act with awareness you have free will. When you act out of pride you do not. You must always watch your ego or it will take your will. In this way you have free will only if you are mindful.

Good point.
When you are aware of the other forces, internal and external, that contend against your will... then you give your own will a better chance of prevailing against them.

We can observe this in decisions as small as whether to have a second slice of chocolate cake.

 

[twin1954]

I am not going to approach this strictly from a philosophical viewpoint but a Biblical one. But before I actually give you the Scripture passages let me give you a few things to think about.
Man does have a will but it is subject to his nature. Just like a dog acts like a dog because it is its nature to do so man makes choices according to the dictates of his nature. So then what is the nature of man? Man's nature is sin. From the Fall we have become what is described as totally depraved in our nature. That doesn't mean that we are all as bad as we could be but that our sinful nature affects every part of our being. We are never described in the Scriptures as being good but as sinners, ungodly, wicked, and enmity with God by nature. Here are just a few passages that show what I mean:

(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


(Rom 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.


(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Rom 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

(Rom 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

(Rom 1:23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


(Rom 3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

(Rom 3:11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

(Rom 3:12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

(Rom 3:13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

(Rom 3:14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

(Rom 3:15) Their feet are swift to shed blood:

(Rom 3:16) Destruction and misery are in their ways:

(Rom 3:17) And the way of peace have they not known:

(Rom 3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.

(Rom 3:19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


(Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?


Of course there are many more passages that I could give you on this but I think these should suffice.

Now consider that since all mankind is bound by his sinful nature it is apparent that our will isn't free as in a libertarian free will. We do have a will and we do make choices but our choices are determined by our nature. More than that the Scriptures are clear that we are under the Sovereign dominion of God who controls all things according to His purpose. Eph. 1:11.

Here are a few passages to think on concerning this:
(Pro 16:1) The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

(Pro 16:4) The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

(Pro 16:9) A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Something more to consider in this question; The Sovereign Lord controls who you are born to, where you are born, who you are influenced by in you life, what the circumstances are that you find yourself in and even the very thoughts you have when it pleases Him to do so. So that every choice that you make you make according to your will and you choose them exactly according to the sovereign purpose of God. Your acts may be evil but you do them according to the purpose of God. I will give you two examples of this from the Scriptures:
Joseph when he reveals himself to his brothers who sold him into slavery in Egypt;
(Gen 50:20) But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

The second is Peter speaking to the Jews;
(Act 2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:


(Act 2:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

And lastly I would encourage you to read, in your spare time of course , The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. It is his debate with Erasmus concerning the concept of free will.

I hope that has been of some help to you.

 

[Drew Blake]

@Urlawyer and @twin1954,

You both bring up interesting approaches. Yet, as with my own line of reasoning, one must ask the question: Why then must anyone be condemned if their choice was out of their control? Is then salvation just for those who were arbitrarily picked to go to heaven since the beginning?

Edit:

Good point.
When you are aware of the other forces, internal and external, that contend against your will... then you give your own will a better chance of prevailing against them.

We can observe this in decisions as small as whether to have a second slice of chocolate cake.

I have often had this line of reasoning my self. However, this argument fell apart for me in a few ways.

For starters, being aware you made the choice and the factors that go into it doesn't mean you had control over the situation. For example, a person in a coma is aware of his situation and the factors that gave rise to his condition. Yet he has no control of his situation.

Additionally, this line of reasoning proves itself without evidence. It asserts that free will exists because I know it exists.

However, the prospect that I am aware of my current choices, such as this very discussion about free choice, does cause me some unease. This is because I must now question the events that led to my own questioning of free will. This may lead me to confusion, paradoxes, and possibly a dimension of reasoning outside the range of human thought process.

 

[twin1954]

@Urlawyer and @twin1954,

You both bring up interesting approaches. Yet, as with my own line of reasoning, one must ask the question: Why then must anyone be condemned if their choice was out of their control? Is then salvation just for those who were arbitrarily picked to go to heaven since the beginning?

Edit:


I have often had this line of reasoning my self. However, this argument fell apart for me in a few ways.

For starters, being aware you made the choice and the factors that go into it doesn't mean you had control over the situation. For example, a person in a coma is aware of his situation and the factors that gave rise to his condition. Yet he has no control of his situation.

Additionally, this line of reasoning proves itself without evidence. It asserts that free will exists because I know it exists.

However, the prospect that I am aware of my current choices, such as this very discussion about free choice, does cause me some unease. This is because I must now question the events that led to my own questioning of free will. This may lead me to confusion, paradoxes, and possibly a dimension of reasoning outside the range of human thought process.

We were created as moral agents and know right from wrong. That isn't true for all other earthly creatures. A lion can kill a gazelle and never feel a pang of remorse. A cat can eat her young without ever feeling that it has done something wrong. That is what separates us from brute beasts.

Moreover, when God created Adam He gave Adam a command and entered into a covenant of works with him. The penalty was spiritual and eventually physical death. Sickness exists because of sin. Not necessarily individual sin done by the person who is sick but because of the penalty of the sin of Adam in the Fall. The Scriptures tell us that Adam wasn't deceived. He knew what he was doing and did it anyway. I can only imagine that knowing that Eve must die he chose to die with her. She was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh and he loved her.

Also we are responsible to God not because we have free will but because He is God who created us and we are subject to Him. We are His creatures and owe Him obedience.

You know, I am sure, that the Bible speaks a great deal about God having an elect people. They are not a physical nation but a spiritual one. He told Moses that His glory was in His sovereign mercy. Ex. 33:18-19 Remember that God is not obligated in any way to save any of Adam's race. He could just as well send us all to everlasting damnation and be perfectly just to do so. But He chose to save a people that are as many as the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea. They are not a handful but an innumerable company who will sing His praise in eternity because he didn't have to save them.

In infinite, wise and powerful love He chose whom He would set His heart upon and gave them to His Son. The Son came into this wicked world of depraved sinners and accomplished all that was necessary to save those whom He loved.

The idea of free will actually makes the love of God to be a meaningless emotion, the redemption and blood of Christ to be useless for all those who end up in Hell and the destroys the good news of the Gospel. It actually makes man to be in control instead of God. Which, by implication, makes man god. Ever since the Fall man has been trying to rob God of His throne. That is what our sinful nature does.

As I said before we have a will and we makes choices exactly according to our desires and motives but we do so exactly as God has determined for us. We are not in any sense robots but moral beings who are under the power and wisdom of God who rules all things for the glory of His name and the good of His people.


Edit for additional comments:
Election is unto salvation it isn't salvation. We are not saved just because God chose us. He, again in infinite wisdom, has determined that the preaching of the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe. There is no salvation apart from hearing the Gospel, Rom. 10:13-17. The Lord Jesus Christ is God's salvation. Salvation isn't a thing that happens to us but a Person in whom we are united by faith.

 

[Urlawyer]

@Urlawyer and @twin1954,

You both bring up interesting approaches. Yet, as with my own line of reasoning, one must ask the question: Why then must anyone be condemned if their choice was out of their control? Is then salvation just for those who were arbitrarily picked to go to heaven since the beginning?

Drew, you ask the key question here. I'm afraid I don't have an answer you're looking for and I doubt there is one that will satisfy your want of a coherent Christianity for the modern day. Main stream science is pretty set on the idea of a soul-less, biochemical, cause and effect conscience. And as for @twin1954's answer, I think you'll find it more full of opinionated interpretations of the bible than hard evidence (as well as a few baseless assertions), and it seems to me what you really want is hard, undeniable proof to support your beliefs or at least quell your fears. That's not really how the scientific method works though. No matter how much we want to believe in something, if we can't find enough evidence to support that belief and/or we find a substantial body of evidence that supports a counter claim, it is up to us as rational human beings to put aside our biases and move toward the truth. Arguments do not carry a lick of evidence within them.

It seems to me that you are stuck between two places. In one hand, you hold your faith which gives your worldview order and stability; it makes you feel safe. And on the other hand, you have logic and evidence which also gives your worldview order and stability, though it doesn't come with that warm nurturing feeling. You cannot have both. You might seek to fuse them, but they are diametrically opposed and will only cause you stress if you try. The bible is pretty clear on the notion of faith as a firm conviction in the unknown/unseen, whereas science is the exact opposite.

I encourage you to follow the evidence that is hard proven and tested. An argument is no way to find truth in anything, it is only a tool for persuasion and if you keep searching for answers in this medium, then I think it's safe to say that you just want to be convinced of your own preconceptions.

Edit: had wrong video up

If you want to continue using your reasoning skills, I suggest looking at https://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3 channel on youtube. Sure it's a guy's deconversion story, but I think you'll find it informative nonetheless, especially this video:

 

[SkyWriting]

It would almost seem as if we are predestined to be saved and Free Will is a farce....In other-words, Hell would mean the sentencing of people without a choice in the matter since birth.

It is impossible to reconcile God, who resides in both the past and the future,
with our existence which we are limited in how we experience events.
There is no logic to it.
It's like a point being trying to understand a circle being.

 

[Moral Orel]

As far as references in the Bible to free will, I've always had a big problem with Romans 9. There's a whole section there that explains how God has the right to affect people's free will however he pleases because he is the creator, and who are we to say otherwise. It also points back to the example of him "hardening" Pharaoh's heart in Exodus because His plan wouldn't have worked the way he wanted it to if Pharaoh had caved and let the Jews go.