V - Free will

Recognizable questions Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in free will? If God says you may choose for yourself, but that a wrong choice can ultimately lead to death, is that still free will? Can a child really choose freely when parents strongly steer them toward one faith? What if that child knows that believing differently later may have consequences for family and friends? What is the difference between being able to choose and feeling free to choose? What role do Satan, Armageddon, and paradise play? Is warning about consequences the same as pressuring someone? How free is baptism when one way of life is encouraged for years? And how do you later discover whether you truly believe something or are mainly afraid of what you might lose if you choose differently? Jehovah gives people free will Free will has an important place within the belief system of Jehovah’s Witnesses. People were not created as robots. According to their teaching, Jehovah wants people to love and obey him of their own accord. Joshua 24:15, for example, says: ‘Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve.’ Baptism is also regarded as a personal choice. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not baptize babies. According to their teaching, a person must understand enough on their own, develop faith, dedicate themselves to Jehovah, and then choose baptism. The idea behind this is clear: Jehovah does not force anyone to serve him. But what does “choose freely” actually mean? That is where the question becomes more complicated. Suppose someone says to you: ‘You can choose entirely for yourself. But if you choose option B, you will die.’ Technically, there are still two possibilities. No one is controlling your body, and no one is stopping you from choosing B. In that sense, there is freedom of choice. But almost no one would say that the announced death has no effect on the decision. That is why it is useful to separate three questions: Can I choose? What consequences are attached to my choice? And how much do those consequences affect the freedom with which I choose? Adam and Eve were allowed to choose The Bible account of Adam and Eve makes this dilemma visible. According to Genesis, they were allowed to eat from the trees in the garden, with one exception: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God warned Adam that he would die if he ate from it. So there was a choice. From the Biblical perspective, the consequence does not destroy free will. God made his standard and the consequence known, and then the human being decided for himself. A believer can therefore say: “Free will does not mean that every choice must have the same consequences.” We know that principle outside religion too. People are allowed to make all kinds of choices that have consequences attached to them. The existence of consequences does not automatically mean free will disappears. Still, a philosophical question remains: if an almighty God determines that one of the possible choices will ultimately lead to your death, how free is that choice psychologically? Being able to choose and choosing freely are not the same A person can formally have a choice and at the same time feel strong pressure to choose one option. Fear of loss, rejection, punishment, or danger can weigh heavily without anyone literally forcing them. That is why it is useful to distinguish between formal freedom of choice and experienced freedom of choice . Formally, you can say: “No one is stopping me. I can say no.” Psychologically, at the same time, this may be true: “Saying no feels almost impossible because of what I believe will happen afterward.” Both can be true at the same time. A child does not choose from a neutral position No child grows up completely uninfluenced. Parents pass on values, set boundaries, and teach their children what they consider right and wrong. That happens in both religious and non-religious families. A child raised as a Jehovah’s Witness therefore usually does not start out by comparing all kinds of religions and worldviews. First, the child learns the reality of their family: this is Jehovah, this is the Bible, this is the truth, and this is what Jehovah expects from people. That does not mean a child cannot later make their own choice. It does mean that this choice has a long history behind it. Guiding parents do not automatically mean coercion Parental guidance is not automatically wrong or coercive either. Every parent guides. Parents decide which values they consider important, what their child learns, and what behavior they encourage or limit. A JW parent may also sincerely believe that getting to know Jehovah is the best thing they can give their child. From that perspective, it makes sense that parents hope their child will later choose Jehovah for themselves. The important question is therefore not whether parents have influence , but: how much room does a child feel they have to think differently from their parents in the end? A child depends on their parents In that respect, a child differs from an independent adult. Parents are not just two people with an opinion. A child depends on them for care, love, safety, reassurance, and belonging. It is in the process of building its identity and its view of reality. That is why parental approval can carry especially heavy weight. A child usually does not just want to find out what is true; it also wants to belong with its parents and remain loved. That does not mean a child has no will of its own. It does mean that its choices take place within relationships on which it is emotionally and practically highly dependent . ‘You’re completely free to choose’ A parent can sincerely say: ‘In the end, you have to decide for yourself whether you want to serve Jehovah.’ And really mean it. At the same time, from an early age a child sees which direction is valued. It goes to meetings, watches videos on JW.org , learns what makes Jehovah happy, may join in the preaching work, gives comments, and receives praise for spiritual progress. Later it can become an unbaptized publisher and eventually choose baptism. Parents can be proud. Congregation members respond enthusiastically. Elders may encourage spiritual progress. In that way, the child learns not only: ‘I’m allowed to choose.’ It may simultaneously experience: ‘I know which choice will make the people I love very happy.’ Positive reinforcement is not coercion A compliment is not coercion. A parent who hopes their child will share the same faith does not automatically take away that child’s free will. And an elder who is enthusiastic about a young person’s spiritual progress does not necessarily manipulate them. Everyone is influenced by upbringing, culture, and surroundings. So the relevant question is not: ‘Am I influenced?’ We all are. More interesting is: ‘How much room did I feel I had to eventually come to a different conclusion?’ What happens when the child says ‘no’? Perhaps free will becomes clearest when we do not look at the desired answer, but at the other answer. Suppose a young person says: ‘I want to become an unbaptized publisher.’ Within a JW family and congregation, that will usually be seen as spiritual progress. But suppose the same child says: ‘I don’t want to go any further for now. I’m not really sure I believe this is the truth.’ Can it then doubt in peace? Is it allowed to ask difficult questions? Can it examine information that might contradict its parents’ convictions? Can it eventually say: ‘I don’t believe this’ ? Do love, safety, and belonging remain, even if its conviction changes? The answers to such questions say something about experienced freedom of choice . Freedom is visible not only in the ability to say yes , but also in the safety with which someone can say no . What does a child think it may lose? There is something else as well. A child may know that religious choices can later have consequences for important relationships. For someone whose family, friends, and social life are largely within the congregation, believing differently can mean far more than just a difference of opinion. Depending on the situation and the religious choices someone makes, relationships with congregation members, friends, and family can change. Especially after baptism, certain decisions can have major social consequences. The child does not have to hear literally: ‘If you start believing differently, you’ll lose us.’ Parents may sincerely love their child and not consciously threaten loss at all. The possible consequences may arise from religious beliefs and rules that the parents themselves also consider right. But for the child’s experience, those consequences can still weigh heavily. Two options, but not the same weight Because of that, two life paths can feel very different. One direction may become associated with Jehovah, the truth, parents’ pride, appreciation from the congregation, spiritual progress, paradise, everlasting life, and retaining the community in which you grow up . The other may become associated with the world, Satan, disappointment, spiritual danger, Armageddon, and possibly change or loss of important relationships . That does not mean every JW child experiences it this way. It also does not mean parents consciously use all these factors to force a choice. But when many of these factors are present at the same time, there are indeed two choices, while for a child they do not carry the same emotional weight . When does influence become pressure? There is no simple line where normal religious upbringing suddenly turns into ‘no free will.’ Influence, guidance, social pressure, and coercion are different things. That is why the statement ‘a JW child has no free will’ is too absolute. A child can have a will of its own, think independently, and sincerely want to choose Jehovah. What you can examine is how much experienced freedom of choice actually exists. Is doubt allowed without fear? Are questions allowed that parents cannot answer? Are different sources allowed to be examined? Is it allowed to arrive at a different conclusion? Does the child know that a different belief does not mean it is worth less as a person? The more difficult or costly one possible conclusion becomes, the more relevant the question becomes of how much room there really is to arrive at that conclusion freely. Free will is also about what ‘no’ costs This raises an important core question: Free will is not only about whether a child is ‘allowed’ to say ‘no.’ It is also about what the child believes it will lose if it says ‘no.’ That loss may turn out to be imagined, may only happen in part, or may be truly great. But for the decision itself, the expectation of loss is also important. Someone who expects to lose a lot may experience their choice differently from someone for whom both outcomes are socially and emotionally safe. Armageddon makes the choice even bigger Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, the choice to serve Jehovah is moreover not separate from their expectation about the future. They believe that God’s Kingdom will eventually bring an end to the present wicked system and that loyalty to Jehovah is tied to the hope of everlasting life. For a convinced adult Witness, that is not a threat, but reality . From that perspective, warning about Armageddon can actually be loving: if you truly believe danger is coming, you warn the people you love. Psychologically, however, the same question remains: what happens to the freedom with which someone examines their faith when they truly believe that making the wrong choice in life could ultimately cost them their life? For a child, that is especially significant A child does not first learn about Jehovah, Satan, Armageddon, and paradise only as an adult. Those concepts can become part of its worldview while that worldview is still forming. It may learn that Jehovah loves people and has given them free will, but also that Satan tries to draw people away from Jehovah, that the world is under his influence, that God will bring an end to the present system, and that faithful worshippers have the hope of living forever in paradise. For a child, that can create a powerful contrast: Jehovah → safety → paradise → everlasting life versus Satan and the world → danger → Armageddon → death . That does not have to mean parents are deliberately trying to scare their child. They may be fully convinced that they are protecting their child. But for the child’s development, the question remains relevant: how much emotional weight does that give to the choice that later has to be made ‘freely’? Can you examine things freely if the wrong conclusion could mean death? Suppose someone begins to doubt. They want to investigate honestly: ‘Is this really true?’ At the same time, another thought may arise: What if Satan is influencing my doubt? What if I leave Jehovah? What if Armageddon comes and I have made the wrong choice? Then the investigation is not only about arguments and facts. In that person’s experience, their life is ultimately at stake. That does not mean someone can no longer think rationally because of fear. It does mean that fear can influence what information someone dares to look at, how much uncertainty they can tolerate, and how safe it feels to genuinely leave open what conclusion their investigation may reach. ‘But every choice has consequences’ A Jehovah’s Witness may raise an important counterargument here: free will does not mean freedom from consequences. If someone chooses dangerous behavior, the consequences do not disappear because the choice was voluntary. From a faith perspective, God’s warning can be seen in a similar way: Jehovah tells people what reality is and which path leads to life. The warning is then not a threat, but protection. That perspective deserves a place in the discussion. But for someone who is precisely trying to investigate whether that picture of reality is true , a special situation arises: they must assess whether the warning is correct while at the same time having been taught that it could be life-threatening to conclude that the warning is not correct. A thought experiment Therefore, a simple thought experiment can reveal a lot. Imagine that you could make the exact same religious choice again, but without the consequences you fear: no Armageddon if you reach the wrong conclusion, no paradise you might miss out on, no fear that Jehovah will reject you, and no loss of family or friends because you come to a different belief. You are allowed to examine everything, and both conclusions are socially safe. Then ask yourself just one question: Would I still make the same choice of faith? When the answer is a confident yes , that says something important. Your conviction then does not seem to depend solely on fear of the consequences. When the answer changes, or you realize you do not know, that does not prove Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong. It does show that the expected consequences have become part of your decision . ‘The truth’ influences the choice Language can influence things too. A child of Jehovah’s Witnesses usually learns not only: ‘This is my parents’ faith.’ They may grow up with the wording: ‘This is the truth.’ As a result, the later question may not only feel like: ‘Do I still believe in the religion I was raised in?’ but like: ‘Do I stay in the truth, or do I leave the truth?’ In that phrasing, one conclusion has already been named as truth. The other option is therefore not just another religious belief, but leaving something that is true . And outside that lies ‘the world’ On the other side, in JW language, lies ‘the world’ . Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that Christians should not be part of the world and that the world is under Satan’s influence. For someone who grows up with that, choosing a different way of life can therefore feel much bigger than: ‘I’m choosing a different worldview.’ Emotionally, it can feel like moving from the truth to the world , from Jehovah to a world under Satan’s influence , and from the hope of everlasting life to possible destruction . Again, not every Jehovah’s Witness experiences this the same way. But for someone who deeply believes these ideas, the possible consequences can feel enormous. Free will and conscience Then there is conscience. A child may initially hear from parents, videos, meetings, and other adults: ‘What would Jehovah think of this?’ After a while, no one needs to say that anymore. The child asks the question of themselves. The religious norm has become internalized. That is not automatically unhealthy. All children internalize norms. But it does mean that outside influence can eventually start to feel like a fully independent inner voice. That is why two statements can be true at the same time: ‘This was truly my choice.’ and: ‘My upbringing strongly shaped which choice felt natural to me.’ In psychology, the broader process by which people learn norms, values, language, and beliefs from their environment is called socialization . That process takes place in every family and every culture. The relevant question is not whether someone has been socialized, but whether later on they experience room to examine again what has become self-evident. Also read in the A-Z Encyclopedia of Psychology: S - Socialization - How do norms, values, and beliefs become part of what feels self-evident? ‘I really wanted it myself’ The same applies to baptism. A young person may sincerely say: ‘I want to get baptized.’ That desire does not have to be fake or coerced. But a sincere desire can still be shaped by years of upbringing. That happens outside religion too. Children adopt values, ambitions, and expectations from the people around them. That is why ‘I wanted it myself’ is not necessarily the end of the inquiry. You can also ask: ‘How did what I wanted come to be?’ Baptism makes free will especially important Jehovah’s Witnesses do not baptize babies, but minors can be baptized. According to the teaching, that decision is voluntary and personal. Before that, there are often many smaller steps: Bible instruction at home, meetings, giving comments, preaching, personal study, spiritual goals, and possibly becoming an unbaptized publisher. None of those steps has to be forced in itself. Together, though, they can create a clear developmental direction: this is where you are growing toward. A young person can therefore truly choose baptism for themselves and still be strongly shaped by the environment in which that choice came about. Those two things do not exclude each other. Free will also applies after baptism A choice is not only free when someone is allowed to make it. It also matters what happens when someone later wants to revisit that choice. A person may, as a young person, make a fully convinced choice to get baptized and years later, after new experiences and research, come to a different conclusion. Is that second decision also part of his free will? From the standpoint of faith, a person remains responsible for his own choices. At the same time, certain choices after baptism can carry religious and social consequences. The freedom to say ‘yes’ is therefore not automatically the same as the freedom to examine that ‘yes’ again later. That is why free will cannot be examined only by asking: ‘How free was I to say yes?’ This question also belongs there: ‘How free did I later feel to say no?’ When thinking differently can cost you For someone whose nearly entire social network is within the congregation, a change in beliefs can have major consequences. Faith is then intertwined with family, friends, identity, and community. That does not mean every former Jehovah’s Witness loses everyone. The consequences vary greatly depending on the situation, family, and the reason someone no longer belongs to the congregation. But when someone expects to lose important people, that is psychologically relevant. Human beings have a fundamental need for connection. The prospect of seeing parents, children, brothers, sisters, or close friends differently, or having less contact with them, can weigh heavily. The choice still exists. But the price of the choice can influence how free that choice feels . The expectation of shunning can already weigh in When someone expects to lose important relationships or a large part of his social network, the fear of social exclusion can also become part of his decision. In psychology, being excluded or socially ignored is called ostracism . Prolonged social exclusion can affect fundamental needs such as belonging, self-esteem, control, and the sense of mattering . So not only actual exclusion is relevant to a choice. The expectation as well: ‘What will happen to my family, friends, and community if I start believing differently?’ can already weigh heavily before someone has even made a decision. That does not mean a person no longer has free will. It does mean that social consequences can become part of the circumstances under which that free choice has to be made. Also read in the A-Z Encyclopedia of Psychology: O - Ostracism - What does prolonged social exclusion do to a person? Social influence does not have to be coercion A large part of human influence happens without orders, punishment, or explicit threats. We pay attention to what important people think of us, which behavior receives approval, what is considered normal within a group, and which choices others make. That happens in families, friend groups, schools, companies, sports clubs, and religious communities. So the observation: ‘My environment influenced my choice’ does not have to mean the same as: ‘My environment forced me.’ Between complete autonomy and coercion lies a wide area of social influence . That is exactly where the question becomes interesting of how much room someone experiences to ultimately choose something different from the people who matter to him. Also read in the A-Z Encyclopedia of Psychology: S - Social influence - How do other people influence our choices without coercion being involved? What if someone chooses Jehovah again after researching? Independent research does not have to lead to leaving. That is important. Someone may have been raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then critically examine his beliefs as an adult and ultimately conclude: ‘I looked at other possibilities and I still believe this is the truth. I want to remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ That choice can even gain more personal meaning because the person knows he gave himself permission to consider a different conclusion as well. A free choice therefore does not have to mean that someone leaves his faith. The point is that the outcome of the research does not have to be predetermined . And if the conclusion changes? The same applies the other way around. After researching, someone may conclude that he still believes in Jehovah but thinks differently about the organization. Someone else chooses another form of Christianity. Yet another becomes agnostic or atheist. And someone may simply say: ‘I don’t know.’ None of those outcomes in itself proves that someone thought more freely or more wisely. The more important question is: could someone truly research, doubt, compare information, and ultimately allow a conclusion that his environment had not hoped for? Fear can remain after your beliefs change For some former Jehovah’s Witnesses, something else happens as well. Rationally, they no longer believe in Armageddon, but when there is war, natural disaster, or world news, they can suddenly still think: ‘What if they’re right?’ That feeling does not automatically prove that someone deep down knows the belief is true. A threat that was experienced as real for years can leave behind a strong emotional association. An intellectual conviction can change more quickly than an automatic fear response. Then it can help to distinguish between: What am I feeling? What did I learn? What do I believe today, and what do I base that on? When such fear remains severe or interferes with daily functioning, professional psychological help may be appropriate. Freedom is not automatically doing the opposite Discovering how much influence your upbringing had does not mean you must now choose the opposite. If you used to do A because the congregation expected A and you now automatically do B because you want to rebel against the congregation, the same old opposition is still determining your choice. Freedom can be much calmer than that: ‘I’m looking at A and B again. Then I decide what I believe and which choice truly fits my values.’ Maybe you keep a lot from your religious upbringing. Maybe much changes. Maybe in the end you arrive at the same conviction again. Free will does not prescribe the outcome. When is a choice truly free? Choosing completely without influence probably does not exist. No one can switch off their upbringing, culture, experiences, emotions, and relationships. So a better standard may not be: ‘Has no one influenced me?’ but: ‘Can I recognize my influences and still examine my conviction again?’ Can you look at information that may contradict your belief? Are you allowed to doubt without immediately seeing yourself as bad? Can you consider a different conclusion without fear instantly ending the investigation? Can you distinguish between what you believe and what you fear? Can you think differently from your parents without being afraid of losing their love? And does a different outcome feel psychologically truly possible? The more room there is for that, the more an eventual choice can genuinely be experienced as your choice . Questions to reflect on yourself What did ‘free will’ mean in my upbringing? Which faith choice was most encouraged from my childhood on? How did my parents react when I made spiritual progress? How did they react when I had doubts or didn’t want something? As a child, could I really imagine that I would later not become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? What did I think would happen if I did not serve Jehovah? What role did Satan, Armageddon, and paradise play in my choices? Did I feel that I could disappoint my parents or other important people? Did I think believing differently could affect my relationships? Was I mainly free to say ‘yes,’ or did I also feel safe enough to say ‘no’? If I was baptized: how old was I and what did I understand at the time about the meaning and possible consequences? Did I later feel just as free to re-examine my choice as I once felt free to make it? Would I make the same faith choice if Armageddon, paradise, and possible social consequences played no role? What do I believe when I try to set aside fear of the consequences for a moment and focus on what is true? Which beliefs truly feel like mine, and which have become so obvious that I never examined them separately? If no one I love would be disappointed if my conclusion changed, would I still believe the same thing? And if, after free inquiry, I choose Jehovah again, might that choice feel even more like my own? In closing Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah gave humans free will and does not force anyone to serve him. From that belief perspective, free will does not mean that every choice has the same consequences. People are allowed to choose, but they are also responsible for their choices. At the same time, a child is not an independent adult who compares different worldviews from a neutral position. A child is raised by parents on whom they depend, learns what those parents believe to be true, experiences which choices are encouraged, and often builds a large part of their social world within the same community. Beliefs about Satan, Armageddon, paradise, and everlasting life can be added to that. Later, there may also be the realization that believing differently can have consequences for important relationships. None of these factors alone proves that a choice is not voluntary. But together they do form the social, emotional, and religious circumstances in which that choice is made . That is why free will is not only about: ‘Could I choose?’ But also about: ‘What did I think would happen if I chose differently?’ And with a child, perhaps even more fundamentally: ‘Was I only allowed to choose for myself — or did I also feel safe enough to choose differently from my parents?’ Ultimately, the hardest question comes down to this: ‘If I did not have to fear God’s disapproval, Armageddon, death, or the loss of people I love, what would I really believe?’ Sources New World Translation - Genesis 2:16, 17; Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15; John 17:14-16; 1 John 5:19; 1 Peter 5:8 JW.org - publications about free will and why God gave humans free will JW.org - publications about Armageddon, everlasting life, and paradise JW.org - publications about baptism, personal dedication to Jehovah, and faith-based upbringing JW.org - Word Jehovah’s Friend - material for children about choices and making Jehovah happy Watchtower Online Library - publications about free will, youth, baptism, and spiritual goals American Psychological Association - information about development, social influence, belonging, fear, and decision-making Albert Bandura - Social Learning Theory Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan - Self-Determination Theory Roy F. Baumeister & Mark M. Leary - The Need to Belong Kipling D. Williams - research on ostracism and social exclusion See also in the Jehovah’s Witnesses A-Z Glossary D - The truth - What does it do to a choice when one belief from childhood is called “the truth”? D - Baptism - When does a personal choice of faith become a religious commitment? G - Faith-based upbringing - How is a child’s faith shaped from a young age? C - Conscience - How does the inner voice arise that assesses your own choices? S - Satan - What influence can belief in Satan and spiritual danger have on choices? W - Withdrawal - What happens when a later choice of faith also has social consequences? W - Worldly - What does the contrast between “the truth” and “the world” do to the freedom of perceived choice? See also in the A-Z Encyclopedia of Psychology O - Ostracism - What does long-term social exclusion do to a person? S - Socialization - How do norms, values, and beliefs become part of what feels self-evident? S - Social influence - How do other people influence our choices without there necessarily being coercion?