It depends upon what you mean by free will Kkwan.
From this article:
“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)
So, what do you mean by free will, Stephen?
There is free will compatible with determinism as I described, a giant two stage model.
The problem with that giant two stage model is that indeterminism is sidelined and relegated to the initial “beginning” of the universe and the unjustified assumption that determinism rules thereafter which is neither true nor justifiable.
As a model, it is a map and not the territory. The universe (territory) is much more complex than that and to characterize it as such is flawed, false, naive, simplistic, misleading and misconceived.
In reality, indeterminism and not determinism, is fundamental in the dynamic, changing and evolving universe from the micro to the macro.
A clockwork universe is a reductionist concept, anthropomorphic and anachronistic, promoted to support determinism, that everything has a cause, causal chains and ultimately, compatibilist free will.
In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every aspect of the machine predictable.
This idea was very popular among deists during the Enlightenment, when Isaac Newton derived his laws of motion, and showed that alongside the law of universal gravitation, they could explain the behaviour of both terrestrial objects and the solar system.
Modern science finds no evidence that it is so. It is a dead myth, metaphor and concept.
The plot thickens here. From this paper on “The Myth of the Clockwork Universe”.
The myth of Newton’s clockwork universe is one of the most persistent and pervasive myths in the history of science, perhaps almost as widespread as the mistaken and essentialistic belief that the Galileo Affair involved some sort of clash between “science” and religion (even though one of the main dynamics was a clash between two forms of science). Like the popular conception of Galileo’s troubles with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the myth of Newton’s clockwork universe is recognized as a myth by most informed historians of science but not by the wider public.
From the conclusion:
A careful reading of Newton’s massive corpus, both published and unpublished, reveals that he was, without question, committed to biblical Christianity—even if not always orthodox—and understood his own work, particularly his physics, in providentialist terms, reflective of his theistic and prophetic understanding of the cosmos. In a certain sense, Blake was right. Newton had a single vision rather than a double vision. But it was a single vision of the cosmos as a whole that contained both matter and spirit and that involved both nature and the superintendence of the God of Israel.
So, it is apparent that many people have been deluded for centuries and it is ironic and incredible that compatibilists would use this “religious myth” to promote their version of free will.
The theists are….