There are two things in life that are beneficial: freedom of thinking and action[1]. Man is the only being on the planet whose nature forbids him from being both free and religious. As a result, man is equipped with the capacity of will, as well as religious tendencies, by nature.

In its most basic form, freewill refers to the ability to make decisions. Furthermore, by his own nature, man is unable to free himself from the shackles of decision-making. In the same way, man is connected by religious ties, thus he can’t help but be religious. Man’s option to do otherwise is already a choice and a religion in and of itself.

I have been sentenced to be free. This indicates that there is no limit to my freedom other than freedom itself, or, to put it another way, we are not free to stop being free. 2

It’s difficult to picture a world without free will; such a society would be devoid of both punishment and reward. This is because, in such a deterministic world, what should be will come to be at the moment and through the agent that it was supposed to come through.

However, man’s freedom is linked to the fact that he is the only being endowed with the ability to think consciously. “That human act is the product of a complex process,” Ekwutosi says. To man, the issue of freewill is ontological. To speak about man without freewill is to invent a distinct kind of creature that is incapable of occupying man’s “status quo.” As a result, talking about a man without free will is a contradiction in terms. It’s no surprise that the United States of America’s constitution prioritizes the problem of liberty. The first ten amendments, collectively known as the bill of rights, clearly state such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. According to Deleuze, Europe’s destiny is foreseen because the loss of God and religion from their lives and cultures ushers in a period of instability, aimlessness, emptiness, and darkness4. There are four chapters in this work. The first chapter deals with the research’s preliminary considerations. The second chapter takes a look at the idea of conscience before Aquinas. The doctrine of Aquinas on conscience is revealed in the third chapter. In the fourth chapter, I’ll discuss how his teaching applies to man as a being with an ultimate goal. After that, we’ll wrap up the essay. Conscience and synderesis are unavoidable in making moral judgements about activities, according to a historical overview of philosophers and thinkers who have studied the subject. However, without an epistemological purification in order to see the relationship between synderesis and conscience, man cannot appreciate and exploit this function of the human mind. Whether correct or false, Aquinas’ doctrine proved that conscience had a binding force[1]. This suggests that a person who succumbs to an erroneous conscience is not immune to doing a wrongdoing. Does this indicate that someone with a faulty conscience must act in an erroneous manner? What measures, if any, could be taken to repair the problem, and how would you go about doing so? A dubious conscience is characterized by a sense of uncertainty regarding something’s legality or obligation.


Throughout history, I’ve discovered that practically all of the world’s wars and strife had either an economic or religious motivation. When we look back at the Roman Empire, we can see that most of the conflicts they fought were motivated by religion. The final straw for the Camel came when he was told:

After the fall of the Roman Empire in 476, an era of intellectual darkness began. The barbarians who wrecked Rome’s political strength also damaged Western Europe’s cultural institutions. Learning came to a screeching halt.


The theological backgrounds of the Romans and the Barbarians were diametrically opposed. As a result, Barbarians destroyed Rome during the Middle Ages, stealing nearly all of the classical literature. Nigeria has Muslim and Christian religions, to narrow it down to Nigerian experience. The country has gone through a series of rancors, which are sometimes referred to as tribal wars. However, a keen observer will see that it contains a lot of religious overtones. This is because every disagreement will result in the burning of a church. This conflict exists not just between different religions, but also between various denominations of the same religion. As a result, many families are split apart. It seems ludicrous that human beings slaughter one another in the name of this same religion, which is supposed to be a path to peace. One race is preparing to wipe the other off the face of the planet.


What boggles my mind is that man is a creature who enjoys freedom of choice, yet he would like to force his fellow man to do anything against his will. This problem is more prevalent among the religious community. This dilemma arises from the fact that some faiths perceive others as members of distinct warring camps, thereby viewing them as adversaries rather than brothers with whom they interact. In this lengthy essay, there is also a comprehensive x-ray of what causes people to exult in turning religion, which is supposed to be a pathway to family, nation, and even global peace, into a pathway to conflict and strife.

Rather, I’m attempting to legitimize different religious sects’ right and freedom to practice private belief in their religious affairs. Despite the fact that our purely rational mind may not have been manipulated.

Finally, I hope to be able to establish a code that will aid individuals of many religions in better understanding one another. As a result, all unneeded animosity between people of different religions is eliminated. In order for them to perceive each other as sons and daughters of the same father, bound for a common destiny. Though my analysis will be guided by William James’ thesis of free will and religion.

Leave a Comment