For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
In the 1980's and earlier I flew 737-200's around the Western, Central and South Pacific region. Most of the small airline (three 737-200 and two 727-100) 35 pilots were former Royal Australian Air Force. All the Boeings had FD 108 flight directors and there were no autothrottles and no EFIS. Manual flying in the climb to 10,000 ft and from 10,000 ft down was the norm and as far as I remember there was only one particular captain who swore by the FD and used it as much as he could. Navigation was by Omega in the early years followed by our first INS. All instrument let downs at the remote Pacific islands were NDB with the occasional VOR and ILS at the larger islands like Guam. In short, the standard of instrument flying was first class and there were no reports of pilots losing the plot in cloud or night IMC. And believe me there were some seriously black nights at these destinations.
Then in 1989 I went to England for a flying job also on the 737-200 and was given an instrument rating test in a 737-200 simulator at Gatwick as part of the British ATPL award, the IRE being a company man himself being tested for his IRE certification by a British CAA senior examiner occupying the 4th seat in the simulator. The senior examiner silently observed the two hour session. I found out later he was the Head Examiner of the CAA. In my opinion and being used to the outsoken and demanding Australian check captains in my former airline, he was a thorough English gentleman. The FD 108 left a lot to be desired and I elected to conduct the instrument approaches (ADF/VOR/ILS) manually flown raw data. After all I had been doing that sort of thing most of my flying career both military and civil.
The test was successful thank goodness as I felt a bit nervous knowing the top CAA gun was watching. The de-briefing finished and paper work signed, the CAA Examiner quietly said "That was OK, but you should try and use the flight director rather than fly raw data. I was tempted to say I found the Collins FD 108 a pain in the neck and that IMHO it added to my workload. But I listened to that tiny voice in my mind and thanked him politely assuring him I would use the FD more in the future. But the CAA man was a wise old bird and guessed I couldn't change my views at my relatively advnced years. We shook hands and went our separate ways. His to his big mahogany desk and me back to a real 737.
Later when flying EFIS 737's I could see the superb accuracy of the flight director system and used it but only to keep in practice at using it - not that I thought I needed it to complete a flight. That was in another era of course... .