UTC  It is indeed necessary to define free will and it is easy I think it is a big mistake to announce that This article covers the nontheological aspects of free will as the root of the concept is at least partly theological  Immediately recall that the very point of free will is to jusitify moral responsibility historically despite the fact that a perfect and omniscient god created man Then warn the reader that a perrenial source of confusion has been about the apparent randomness or nondetermination in human choices and that this point will be adressed seperately because both aspects of free will are apparently at odds Then maybe after some historical notes introduce compatibilits at least Humelike free will  the ability to choose in agreement to ones principles or main goals The point of this definition is to found moral responsibility ability to include the threat of punishment into ones decision process Once this definition has been given the rest of the issues are much clearer and especially the fact the some limited macroscopic determinism is required to give sense to it   October