What kind of fallacy is this: "We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice."

Besides free will is sometimes a religious concept so!times not. Everyone has their own idea of it, we have no choice.....rrrr

"We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice."
I believe a good case can be made that this statement qualifies as a Logical Fallacy, though there are some qualifications.
Specifically, the fallacy/logical violation is one of Self Contradiction, alternatively known as “Conflicting Conditions” (Bo’s lexicon) or “Contradictory Premises”.
Both refer to the fallacy occurring when a statement contradicts itself, i.e., when a statement asserts and denies the same thing.
Reasoning:
The full statement consists of two independent components, a subject:
1.“We have to believe in Free Will.” Standing alone, this is merely an asserted belief or a claim; no logical fallacy is present.

And a predicate or support statement:

2.“We’ve got no choice.” Again standing alone, this statement is also a claim or belief, but if taken literally, is purely deterministic, i.e., the very antithesis of “Free Will.” On its face, this statement asserts that ‘one could not have done otherwise (e.g., one is ‘forced’ to believe) strongly indicating any ‘choice’ in the matter is impossible.

When combined, the subject and predicate statements form a self-contradictory third statement; the contradiction is that Free Will cannot exist if one is ‘FORCED’ to believe in it.

I mentioned qualifications. Two come to mind:
1. No context is provided for the predicate “We’ve got no choice” which can possibly be taken figuratively, not literally. If taken figuratively it is then non-deterministic (or possibly, ‘soft’ deterministic) and presents no contradiction with the subject statement.
2. The full statement is intended to be humorous or ironic. Similar to Bo’s quote from Chris Hitchens, this would then provide an exemption from the ‘Conflicting Conditions’ fallacy.

I hope this argument opens the door for consideration as a logical fallacy, absent the possible qualifiers.

This is the stolen concept fallacy.
A premise is used to conclude the opposite of the premise. The concept of free will is stolen.

@ C Hill

I don’t think the “Stolen Concept” fallacy applies here. My reasoning is based both on both original statement syntax and the nature of this fallacy.

The Stolen Concept fallacy (originally identified by Ayn Rand) amounts to using what you are trying to disprove. That is, requiring the truth of something for your proof that it is false. Another way of viewing it is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. For example, using science to show that science is wrong. Or, arguing that you do not exist, when your existence is clearly required for you to be making the argument.

Some commonly cited examples of The Stolen Concept fallacy:

1.Proudhon’s famous declaration that “All property is theft.” (The fallacy being that, as theft has no meaning without a concept of ownership, the statement is a paradox.)
2.Pro-abortion activists who argue that since there are no such things as unalienable rights, there is no right to life, so that there is an unalienable right to abortion.
3.Christians who claim that the Bible, when "rightly" parsed and
"correctly" interpreted, is the ultimate authority on faith. (However, for that to
be the case, the truly ultimate authority on faith would be the standard used for
choosing which Bible verses to follow and for their interpretation, not the Bible itself.


In the original subject statement: “"We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice" there are TWO propositions at play, appearing respectively in the subject and (supporting) predicate of the statement: 1. Free Will and 2. Determinism. While they are (inversely) related there is no doubt that each may stand alone as a plausibly true concept; neither is intrinsically identical to, dependent upon or a subset of the other. Thus, IMOP the Stolen Concept fallacy fails to apply.

I would add that The “Stolen Concept” fallacy is not one of my favorites, meaning that statements to which it is ascribed often contain other fallacies (frequently non sequiturs) or simply false assertions such that you have muddied fallacy waters.