Free will is a topic that is rather diverse in possible meanings. With just the mention of the name, I could really be referring to any number of examples. Free will, for example, is a constitutional right endowed upon people of most countries. Free will is our ability to determine our own actions or thoughts, anatomically and physiologically speaking. Free will is our ability to do so psychologically speaking, as well. But the free will that I’m referring to in this short essay is refers to man’s ability to choose whether or not to accept the will of god.
Now this is a little bit ridiculous, because if there is a god, then we don’t really know his take on free will. More specifically, I am talking about Christianity’s position on god and free will, and why it makes no sense. I suppose, then, that this is really just another venue that I’m taking to disprove the notion of the Christian god, basically. Nonetheless, it’ll be a good way for me to vent, and maybe somebody somewhere will get their kicks from hearing this.
I’ve gotten into a debate with someone over freewill and Christianity, which I was forced by my own principles to leave. Basically, after rallying back and forth for a while, it became clear that my adversary was simply reusing points that were already disproved, by failing to address my attacks on his points and using them anyway, etc, etc. It was pointless. But here is how it went:
I find the most troubling logical fallacy with the Christian god to be the way he deals with sinners. Supposedly he punishes them in order to get them to have better faith in him, to obey him, or even to make those who already believe in him do so even more. Sure, that’s all very well, except for the punishment part. So the Christian god is supposedly omniscient. (knows literally everything) omnipotent, (can do literally anything) and omni-benevolent. (a made up term meaning that he loves all life, and always chooses the action that causes the most good) But if that’s the case, then his methods for dealing with people are unnecessarily mundane.
From what I can tell, he supposedly harms people to either teach them a lesson, test their faith, or to increase their faith. All of these make sense to do, but no god with all of those omni-somethings above would really need to destroy cities, kill families, burn people alive, or anything of the sort. Let’s just start with testing people: If he’s truly omniscient, then he knows what is in their hearts, and doesn’t need a freaking stool sample to see that they’ve taken their daily dose of mindless obedience pills. As for teaching people to have deeper faith in him, like Job, then here are two problems, using Job as an example. First, if god really knows everything, then he should be able to come up with a better way to deepen Job’s faith, that doesn’t involve the slaughter of thousands of innocent people and animals. This leads me to my second point, that an omni-benevolent god wouldn’t act in such a way as did the Christian one. How on Earth is it morally justifiable to murder hundreds of innocent women, children, and servants, likely leaving much suffering among those not killed, simply to make one man who is already a very devout person to be a little bit more devout? How the hell is that a worthy trade off? By today’s moral standards, a cure for cancer wouldn’t be worth that high of a body count, much less a single lesson learned by one man. As you can see, this story along with numerous other examples simply don’t line up with the description of “god” that is given in the same book that they’re in.
My last point on the topic of god pointlessly causing suffering, however, is my true coup de grace on the topic. God, apparently, will often punish people for being evil, in order to purify them. So in other words, the desired end result is to make them a model citizen, who invites his neighbors to dinner on weekends, and helps old ladies cross the road. And again, we’re looking at a supposedly omnipotent god, meaning he can do anything inside or outside the boundaries of human imagination, without the slightest of effort. It seems to me that, with these two givens, the logical conclusion would be for this god to simply make the delinquents in question into the kind of person he’d have them be. Being omniscient as well, he is able to see what the outcome of every possible way to change them would be, and being omni-benevolent he would then pick the one that’s most beneficial to everybody. This seems to make sense, from a pragmatic point of view, which is why it arouses so much concern to see that in biblical examples and speculated modern day examples, god does no such thing. Instead, he will cause pain, suffering, loss, or anything unpleasant upon a person to make him into a more godly one. This is the point where I call BS, and say that if there is a god, he cannot be the Christian one because of the contradiction involved in their theory.
But the argument against this assertion is that god refrains from simply rewiring our brains without us noticing, because this would strip us of our freewill. Sure, the argument is correct in and of itself, but as an argument it doesn’t refute my point. How is it that while turning someone into a better person in such a way that will be beneficial for him and others, is against free will, while torturing that person into submission until he eventually caves and submits to god’s will is somehow an example of free will? It seems to me that either way, the person is doomed to submit to god’s will, the only difference being how much pain and blood are involved in the process. To refute this, a christian would say that the person can technically choose to refuse god still… But how is that free will? I mean, if I strap you to a chair in my basement and whip you until you agree to leave me your will, but I say that you don’t have to give me your money if you want to remain in my basement, being whipped forever; then that is NOT free will! That is, admittedly, giving you a choice, but I have taken away your right to self-determination, and therefore no matter what I allow you to say or think, you are still not truly free. This is the same manner in which the theoretical Christian god strips our free will, so since he is already doing so, there is no justification for him choosing to do so when more humanitarian options exist.
While we’re on the topic of how god deals with bad people, here’s another question: God is present at all times, and knowing of all things, so he is capable of seeing what a person will be like after they are born… Generations and generations before they are born. So why doesn’t he stop certain people from being born--- Not all sinners, because I know Christians are fond of the idea that everyone is born a despicable person for being human--- just the people who he knows that he would have to admonish if he were to allow them to live. And there are a million ways that he could do this, from an abortion, all the way to him making a tiny tweak in the replication of DNA during meiosis in one of the parents. It seems that if a god knows everything, and wants to cause the most good possible, then he would be completely capable and inclined to do this. I mention this to a Christian again, though, and again the free will card is played.
I have a similar contention with this issue. At any particular time, there are trillions of sperm in the world, all of which are potential human beings. Since god knows everything, then he must know of all of these cells and their potential future selves. Same thing goes for eggs, etc, you get the point. So since god must have some kind of involvement in which ones get passed through (because really, since you theists are always saying how god planned everything out, he did plan this) why doesn’t he choose the ones that would grow to be model Christians, for his own damn sake? I mean, how is this in defiance with freewill? In what way is every unborn child entitled to become a human being, there are practically infinite hypothetical children, and only a tiny, infinitesimal percent are allowed to survive. So that means that already, very many of these people, both good and bad, are prevented from ever living at all. All I’m saying, Christians, is that if your god really does try to do the most good in the world, then why does he allow Hitlers and Stalins to be born? Riddle me that one.
And now, my final and what I find to be my most disturbing point on free will. The argument I got in return for my point about god just turning people’s evil minds into good ones actually came with a quote, from C. S. Lewis. It went “We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.” Before I continue, I wasn’t saying that god should obliterate all evil, but I’m just saying that if he’s going to punish someone anyway, to the effect of making them not be as evil, why not just do so without the part that involves killing his family, burning down his apartment complex, or getting his blood all over a perfectly good rug.
My main point, however, is that both C.S. Lewis and most Christians simply assume that god wouldn’t do this, because it would occur to them if he was controlling their thoughts… Right… Here is my question to any theists who think this about free will. What if your free will is already gone? What if you “decide” to sit down on your couch after a hard day’s work at your mediocre job, turn on CSI for an hour, and make yourself a sandwich, thinking it’s your choice, but really god has decided you would do this? What if he causes every single one of your thoughts, whether it’s debating with yourself over which cereal to buy, or it’s the thought that you have free will? What if every single one of your thoughts and actions isn’t your own, and similarly he is controlling your thoughts in a way to prevent you from thinking that he is? Sure, the god you know wouldn’t do this, but what if god is only making you think that he is that way, what if he is forcing your brain to think that it is rational to believe that he wouldn’t do such a thing, that he is a moral god, and that I am lying to you right now? The thing is, if this were the case, then neither you, nor I, nor anyone would know it. Not, of course, unless he would have it that way…
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
Sincerely,
The Ellipsis
No comments:
Post a Comment