" 2006 (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 non-theological 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 non-determination 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 Hume-like) free will  the ability to choose in agreement to one's principles (or main goals). The point of this definition is to found moral responsibility (ability to include the threat of punishment into one's 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. 14:09, 3 October"