In the New Testament book of John chapter 20 verse 29 we get the message that Thomas was blessed for seeing the resurrected Jesus and believing in him, but we also get the message that even more blessed are all those who believe without seeing Jesus resurrected and in person. For me, this scripture was the basis of feeling that faith in Jesus, without having seen him in person, could be even more powerful than actually having seen him to verify his exalted state. This was interpreted by me to mean that the knowledge that comes from faith in the unseen is more noble than knowledge that comes from our own senses.
Perhaps this is why I got so much blow-back from believers in the LDS church that are my friends when I posted the following quote on my Facebook wall, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." by Ann Lamott. This rubs members of the LDS church the wrong way. We are so conditioned to believe that the knowledge that comes from faith is superior to knowledge gained from observation that when the very nature of faith (as a principle that is not knowledge, but a tool that can be used to obtain knowledge) is pointed out to us, we feel threatened and attacked.
To have faith in things that are unseen is viewed as a virtue in a religious context, however, why don't we feel the same way when it comes to book learning? One thing I never could figure out is why there was such a difference in the way I was taught things at school versus how I was taught things at church. For example, Sunday school teachers would teach things and then "testify" of their truth at the end of the lesson. My teachers in school never did that. My science teacher never taught me about some scientific theory or idea and then closed with some variation of, "...and I want you young people to know that I have a testimony of these things..." Why not? What is the difference between knowledge gained in church versus at school? I think the difference is pretty clear.
Faith is the foundation of what is taught at church and knowledge is the foundation of what is taught in school. Teachers in school don't need to "testify" of what they teach, because they have the scientific method backing up their position. If it is possible, they want to be proven wrong and, in some cases, they are.
I remember watching an interview with Brian Greene, the physics professor at Columbia University who popularized string theory in books and PBS television specials. He was asked, "What will you do if it turns out that (a certain aspect of) string theory is not accurate?" His answer actually surprised me since it seems like he has a pretty vested interest in seeing string theory become an accepted scientific principle. His response was something to the effect of, "that would be great, because then we would be one step closer to knowing more about how things actually are in the universe!" I'm sure people can find scientists who don't share this outlook on the future of scientific discovery because they have a heavily vested interest in seeing their view of things become the accepted standard, but I think (maybe I simply hope) that these folks are in the minority.
However, teachers at church don't want to prove anything except what they have been taught and accept on faith as truth. Learning at church is a simple exercise in agreement. Every part of the institution is set up to confirm what has been taught at one time or another as a self evident truth. While there are references to experiments and ways of finding truth in the Book of Mormon, these are really just lip service. The faithful don't really want anyone to perform experiments to find out just how beneficial prayer can be, for example. They want allegorical or anecdotal evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs of what they have been told is the expected outcome.
To suggest that someone has performed an experiment on their faith with any scientific objectivity is considered insulting to the faithful. To even bring it up means being met with an argument from compartmentalization. Meaning, you will be told that science (i.e. objective observation to confirm or deny the most logical explanation [theory] for something) and faith are simply incompatible. I have been told several times that one cannot prove spiritual things with science and that science will not ever be able to prove spiritual things.
While that may be true to some, science can explain the cause of experiences that we may be tempted to attribute to a "spiritual" experience. Imagine that one has some sort of spiritual epiphany that brings one closer to the deity they imagine. If we can ask the person to describe what they feel at that time, we might find that it is some sort of euphoric, warm, tingly or happy feeling. So the question is, could that same set of feelings be reproduced under different circumstances? My guess is they could. I get those feelings, that I used to attribute to spiritual communication, at very odd times, with no apparent explanation at all. Usually the feeling comes when I talk with someone I care about and desire to help them in some way. But it is not a feeling I can reproduce at will. Even if I try to duplicate the circumstances as completely as possible, there just won't be the same feeling come. There is very little in the way of a pattern or predictability for it. It comes when I don't really expect it. Much like other emotions we experience, usually there is some environmental stimulus for them, but other times they may be the result of hormonal or chemical imbalances or seem to be completely random in nature. Those emotional responses that are based on hormonal or chemical imbalances can be reproduced and experienced at will given the right set of circumstances being reproduced in the body or brain if we could measure and alter those things in a precise manner (for the most part).
So, if I am genuinely interested in establishing whether or not these spiritual experiences are coming from some deity somewhere (Where exactly, no one seems to know. On a side note, the physical locations in the known universe that God could be existing/hiding in are pretty remote at this point. About the only place God could possibly exist is in other dimensions - which we have yet to prove exist with any certainty - or at some sub, sub, sub, sub atomic level that we don't have the ability to observe yet) or being generated as a simple, and somewhat predictable, emotional response, I would begin with a hypothesis.
That is; feelings of euphoria, peace, love, joy, happiness, goodness (internal sense of right and wrong) come from an unseen deity or they are merely appendages of the continuum of emotions we all experience in our human experience.
It would seem pretty simple to show that if any of the emotional responses we experience in everyday life overlap anywhere with what we might label as "spiritual" experiences that would be pretty damning to the belief that they originate from God. However, let's say that God IS found in all the mundane and petty details of our lives that stimulate emotional responses - i.e. God is the source of ALL of our emotions. If that is the case, then there is no way to differentiate between those feelings that are beneficial - and intended to bring us closer to God - and those that are just part of the everyday human experience. If that is the case, then it seems pretty meaningless to attach meaning where no meaning can be objectively derived. If God is the source of ALL emotion (and He very well could be), my conclusion is that emotional responses are not a good indicator of the existence of God or as a tool that should be used to gauge effectiveness in living a life worthy of God's approval. It is also safe to say that such emotional responses do not contain any explicit set of instructions or interpretations to go along with them (at least mine don't anyway but, then again, I may be a defective unit). This is especially troubling when we realize that emotional responses can be triggered through manipulation.
If someone tells me that someone close to me has died (and I trust them to the point that I don't think to question their information) then that could easily elicit a strong emotional response in me. In that case, my outpouring of feelings expressed at such news would have been generated by false information. If God is the source of all our feelings, why does He rely on such an unreliable medium to convey what could be seen as, arguably, the most important information we need (i.e. knowledge of the plan for being able to determine our ETERNAL station related to God)? To quote Boyd K. Packer, "Why would God do such a thing?" It really makes no sense.
So, until someone can explain why God would choose to place so much emphasis on such an unreliable mechanism for determining truth, I will maintain my position that faith is only useful if it brings us to knowledge (that is real, provable and able to be duplicated under any differing circumstances through objective experiment) otherwise, faith in things that can be repeatedly dis proven is not a useful mechanism to lead us to knowledge and deserves to be discarded in favor of something better (a better faith).
By the way, faith is actually a pretty useful tool in science, although it doesn't receive nearly as much airtime in science as it does in religious circles. Something that has really helped me understand the place of faith in the world of science is that faith is what motivates the performing of experiments to validate a belief in how the world works. If someone comes up with an idea about how they think things ought to work they try to develop a hypothesis (i.e. a statement about what they believe so that it could become a law to guide future scientists). Once a hypothesis is arrived at, a scientist - having faith in their hypothesis - attempts to come up with experiments to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Faith certainly drives the scientist to keep going when the going is difficult, but the ultimate courage (and test of faith) comes when the experiment reveals the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis. In that moment, faith is either strengthened or diminished in that belief (hypothesis). Of course, it is kind of odd to think that if faith is strengthened, that means it is actually going away because it is leading to knowledge. This is the way it should be. Faith either leads us to knowledge (where knowledge displaces our faith in something) or it leads to a revision of our hypothesis and faith in something different. Faith is a tool that is useful as a stepping stone to knowledge, but that's it. It's not really good for much more than that.
To maintain faith in something that can't be proven through experiment seems pretty silly. In fact, I wonder what God would say to people who advocated maintaining their faith in Him in spite of lots of observable evidence to the contrary? Will He reward those who do not test and try to disprove their faith? Or how will He look on those who tried to find the best possible explanations for the world as we know it and tried to eliminate those ideas that turned out to be contradictory, unreliable, or non-universal in nature? I would like to think that God will look kindly on those that challenged their faith and relied on logic and reason to determine ultimate truth. I don't think God wants blind followers, I think God wants people who can think and reason and make tough decisions (even if that means they see that abandoning faith fits with experiment and observations in piecing together the big picture of who and what we are as people). People who have to come up with other things to base morality on besides tradition and ancient mythology. I hope God sees those people as deserving of great rewards in the afterlife believers cling to. Otherwise, I'm screwed, but I'm OK with that.
Showing posts with label free will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free will. Show all posts
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Catch-22 of Belief
This is the story of Joe and Fred. Joe believes in God and believes that God endorses the religion he belongs to. Joe believes that there will be a day that will come, after we all die, where God will judge Joe for his actions. Joe knows that God will also be judging everybody else that has ever lived as well. Joe hopes that God will be kind and forgiving to all those that did not believe in God while they lived on the earth, but Joe has also been told in the texts, regarded as sacred and originating from God by his religion, that God is a jealous God and is very capable of punishing those who do not believe in God.
Joe meets Fred.
Fred doesn't believe in God at all. Fred believes in evolution, the big bang and in the discoveries that science continues to make about our existence. Fred is very open to new ideas, but comfortable with his beliefs. Fred also knows quite a bit about the religious teachings of the church that Joe belongs to.
As Joe and Fred come to know each other they both have thoughts about the other. Joe thinks Fred doesn't do some of the things that he ought to. Joe thinks Fred should go to church or read the books that Joe thinks are sacred, from God, and will help us all to fare better when it comes time for God to judge us. Joe attempts to tell Fred this when the occasion permits but, for the most part, Joe decides to honor Fred's wishes that he not push his religion on him.
However, Joe is concerned.
Joe worries that if Fred doesn't change his "sinning" ways at some point then he will have to pay a heavy price when the judgment day comes. Joe cannot honestly accept Fred the way he is. Joe clings to the belief that Fred will see the error of his ways at some point in the future. In fact, Joe is promised this will be the case by the leaders of his church so Joe should not worry so much about Fred - although, Joe is told, he should still be concerned enough to never give up on Fred. Joe waits patiently for the day when Fred will finally come to his senses, see the error of his ways, and be open to what Joe has been trying tell him. Joe is sure that someday the spirit of God will be poured out on Fred and he will be touched in a way where he will not be able to ever deny the existence of God again.
Joe wants to be friends with Fred, but he also wonders if Fred may be a bad influence on him. He wonders if hanging out with Fred might cause him to someday lose his belief in God. Joe is told by people at church that he should limit his association with "sinners" because they will most assuredly drag him "down to hell" with them.
Joe likes Fred. They have much in common and really enjoy doing things together. Joe is torn about what to do about being friends with Fred. Joe can't really tell Fred what he is going through, worrying about his future with God and all, although he tries to on occasion. Fred just listens to what Joe has to say and chalks it up to his opinion. While Fred accepts Joe and doesn't allow his ideas about believing in God stand in the way of their friendship, he also knows what Joe's beliefs are and senses the struggles that Joe seems to be going through. Fred tries to tell Joe not to worry and everything will be sorted through in the afterlife. Joe hears this and thinks, that's right, in the afterlife you will come to your senses and will believe as I do and we will be even happier together living with God.
Joe, however, can't get past these thoughts of concern for his friend. Joe knows that his beliefs are true. Joe wonders why Fred can't see it and what exactly the devil has done to cloud his mind so he can't see the truth that Joe knows. Fred tries to share some information with Joe about the history of his religion and tries to show why the scriptures don't make sense in places. Joe refuses to listen. Joe has been taught to never question the foundational principles of his beliefs and never does. Fred can't seem to get through to Joe and Joe can't seem to get through to Fred.
Fred doesn't think anything is wrong with Joe. If Joe is truly happy in his beliefs, then Fred is happy. Fred isn't mentally always looking for ways to try and change Joe to his way of thinking, Fred is honestly trying to find what makes the most sense. Fred doesn't fret about the afterlife or the judgment of some God he has never met. Fred can accept Joe without reservation, even though he may think he is wrong about things. Of course, Fred thinks Joe's ideas of some things are a bit weird and illogical, but Fred realizes that he has some pretty strange ideas himself sometimes as well.
So here's the catch-22. Joe cannot ever truly and fully accept Fred the way he is unless he "converts" to his way of believing. Fred can truly and fully accept Joe for who he is and what he believes because his beliefs are open to the possibilities, but grounded in the world we can repeatedly observe around us. The only way that Joe can truly and fully accept Fred for who he is, without Fred converting, is for Joe to deny his belief that his religion represents the truth of what or who God is. Joe cannot have it both ways. It is either that he always sees Fred as deficient in some way (or as a "sinner") and maintains his belief in God or he fully accepts Fred and accepts that his own religious teachings are false. This is why I think religion is very polarizing and causes divisions. The religious mind cannot fully accept people unless they convert to their beliefs and in some way attempt to follow what they, the religious, believe.
What makes this situation all the more difficult is when a person like Joe becomes like Fred and has to try and communicate this to his loved one's who still believe as Joe once did. Marriages are lost over this, relationships between parents and siblings become strained because the believers fear for the eternal well being of their spouse or loved one. They are afraid because of their belief in God. Their belief in God, while permeating so much of who they are and how they think, is just too difficult to abandon.
I am one who was once like Joe. I am now like Fred. I have taken the plunge into the real world and found it to not be as bad as I once thought it was. Now I find the most difficult thing to deal with is the fear that others have for my eternal well being. I fear as well. I fear what my wife and children honestly think of me as they continue to follow their beliefs in God and the afterlife. Do they pity me? How do they deal with the knowledge that I don't believe as they do? I honestly think the only way they can begin to accept me, is to hope that I will see things the way they do someday. I fear that they will think less of me as they pursue the teachings of their church and come to learn (or be reminded) that I am not fully as happy as I could be unless I believe as they do.
This is a lie.
People find their own happiness and can have as much happiness as they want and it doesn't require a God or a religion to have all they desire right here, right now. I can accept this. Religious people who believe they have the truth about God and the afterlife cannot accept this unless you convert to their way of thinking about these things. Their happiness for you is always conditional on your belief. Mine is not conditional. Mine is based on whatever it is that brings you happiness. If it brings you happiness, I am happy, whatever that may be (as long as it doesn't harm me in some way). My happiness does not require you to believe as I do. My happiness is sincerely based on what I find that brings me happiness and allows you to have your chosen happiness and what you find for yourself, truly, regardless of what that is. I am not happy only if you believe, I am happy. Period. If you are happy, great. I am happy for you. No strings attached. My happiness does not require that you change, or find the "true" path, or accept Jesus or anything else.
What is required for you to be truly happy and truly and honestly and fully be able to accept people in life, as they are, without hoping they will come around some day?
I think there are some whose beliefs will prohibit them from being able to honestly answer this question the way I would hope. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If the believers are right and God is as they suggest, I hope your God shows me some mercy. However, if I'm right and this life is it, I will have been able to accept you as a human being with all your flaws and truly been able to see them as evidence of your uniqueness. Your mistakes or preferences would not serve as proof that we will not ever be able to be together again to enjoy eternal life with God. No. You are your own guide to happiness. It is truly possible for people to be happy without God in their life. I accept this to be true. What do you think?
Joe meets Fred.
Fred doesn't believe in God at all. Fred believes in evolution, the big bang and in the discoveries that science continues to make about our existence. Fred is very open to new ideas, but comfortable with his beliefs. Fred also knows quite a bit about the religious teachings of the church that Joe belongs to.
As Joe and Fred come to know each other they both have thoughts about the other. Joe thinks Fred doesn't do some of the things that he ought to. Joe thinks Fred should go to church or read the books that Joe thinks are sacred, from God, and will help us all to fare better when it comes time for God to judge us. Joe attempts to tell Fred this when the occasion permits but, for the most part, Joe decides to honor Fred's wishes that he not push his religion on him.
However, Joe is concerned.
Joe worries that if Fred doesn't change his "sinning" ways at some point then he will have to pay a heavy price when the judgment day comes. Joe cannot honestly accept Fred the way he is. Joe clings to the belief that Fred will see the error of his ways at some point in the future. In fact, Joe is promised this will be the case by the leaders of his church so Joe should not worry so much about Fred - although, Joe is told, he should still be concerned enough to never give up on Fred. Joe waits patiently for the day when Fred will finally come to his senses, see the error of his ways, and be open to what Joe has been trying tell him. Joe is sure that someday the spirit of God will be poured out on Fred and he will be touched in a way where he will not be able to ever deny the existence of God again.
Joe wants to be friends with Fred, but he also wonders if Fred may be a bad influence on him. He wonders if hanging out with Fred might cause him to someday lose his belief in God. Joe is told by people at church that he should limit his association with "sinners" because they will most assuredly drag him "down to hell" with them.
Joe likes Fred. They have much in common and really enjoy doing things together. Joe is torn about what to do about being friends with Fred. Joe can't really tell Fred what he is going through, worrying about his future with God and all, although he tries to on occasion. Fred just listens to what Joe has to say and chalks it up to his opinion. While Fred accepts Joe and doesn't allow his ideas about believing in God stand in the way of their friendship, he also knows what Joe's beliefs are and senses the struggles that Joe seems to be going through. Fred tries to tell Joe not to worry and everything will be sorted through in the afterlife. Joe hears this and thinks, that's right, in the afterlife you will come to your senses and will believe as I do and we will be even happier together living with God.
Joe, however, can't get past these thoughts of concern for his friend. Joe knows that his beliefs are true. Joe wonders why Fred can't see it and what exactly the devil has done to cloud his mind so he can't see the truth that Joe knows. Fred tries to share some information with Joe about the history of his religion and tries to show why the scriptures don't make sense in places. Joe refuses to listen. Joe has been taught to never question the foundational principles of his beliefs and never does. Fred can't seem to get through to Joe and Joe can't seem to get through to Fred.
Fred doesn't think anything is wrong with Joe. If Joe is truly happy in his beliefs, then Fred is happy. Fred isn't mentally always looking for ways to try and change Joe to his way of thinking, Fred is honestly trying to find what makes the most sense. Fred doesn't fret about the afterlife or the judgment of some God he has never met. Fred can accept Joe without reservation, even though he may think he is wrong about things. Of course, Fred thinks Joe's ideas of some things are a bit weird and illogical, but Fred realizes that he has some pretty strange ideas himself sometimes as well.
So here's the catch-22. Joe cannot ever truly and fully accept Fred the way he is unless he "converts" to his way of believing. Fred can truly and fully accept Joe for who he is and what he believes because his beliefs are open to the possibilities, but grounded in the world we can repeatedly observe around us. The only way that Joe can truly and fully accept Fred for who he is, without Fred converting, is for Joe to deny his belief that his religion represents the truth of what or who God is. Joe cannot have it both ways. It is either that he always sees Fred as deficient in some way (or as a "sinner") and maintains his belief in God or he fully accepts Fred and accepts that his own religious teachings are false. This is why I think religion is very polarizing and causes divisions. The religious mind cannot fully accept people unless they convert to their beliefs and in some way attempt to follow what they, the religious, believe.
What makes this situation all the more difficult is when a person like Joe becomes like Fred and has to try and communicate this to his loved one's who still believe as Joe once did. Marriages are lost over this, relationships between parents and siblings become strained because the believers fear for the eternal well being of their spouse or loved one. They are afraid because of their belief in God. Their belief in God, while permeating so much of who they are and how they think, is just too difficult to abandon.
I am one who was once like Joe. I am now like Fred. I have taken the plunge into the real world and found it to not be as bad as I once thought it was. Now I find the most difficult thing to deal with is the fear that others have for my eternal well being. I fear as well. I fear what my wife and children honestly think of me as they continue to follow their beliefs in God and the afterlife. Do they pity me? How do they deal with the knowledge that I don't believe as they do? I honestly think the only way they can begin to accept me, is to hope that I will see things the way they do someday. I fear that they will think less of me as they pursue the teachings of their church and come to learn (or be reminded) that I am not fully as happy as I could be unless I believe as they do.
This is a lie.
People find their own happiness and can have as much happiness as they want and it doesn't require a God or a religion to have all they desire right here, right now. I can accept this. Religious people who believe they have the truth about God and the afterlife cannot accept this unless you convert to their way of thinking about these things. Their happiness for you is always conditional on your belief. Mine is not conditional. Mine is based on whatever it is that brings you happiness. If it brings you happiness, I am happy, whatever that may be (as long as it doesn't harm me in some way). My happiness does not require you to believe as I do. My happiness is sincerely based on what I find that brings me happiness and allows you to have your chosen happiness and what you find for yourself, truly, regardless of what that is. I am not happy only if you believe, I am happy. Period. If you are happy, great. I am happy for you. No strings attached. My happiness does not require that you change, or find the "true" path, or accept Jesus or anything else.
What is required for you to be truly happy and truly and honestly and fully be able to accept people in life, as they are, without hoping they will come around some day?
I think there are some whose beliefs will prohibit them from being able to honestly answer this question the way I would hope. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If the believers are right and God is as they suggest, I hope your God shows me some mercy. However, if I'm right and this life is it, I will have been able to accept you as a human being with all your flaws and truly been able to see them as evidence of your uniqueness. Your mistakes or preferences would not serve as proof that we will not ever be able to be together again to enjoy eternal life with God. No. You are your own guide to happiness. It is truly possible for people to be happy without God in their life. I accept this to be true. What do you think?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Force, coercion and manipulation
In thinking about the idea of forcing people back to heaven, versus inviting or enticing them, I wanted to outline the various ways it could be accomplished. However, before I can begin to talk about how it could be accomplished, I need to outline the ideas and behaviors that would make up such control mechanisms.
What are the various forms of control over people and how are they manifest?
Based in my experience, control can be exercised in one of several ways:
1. Physical force. This would be causing another to engage in a behavior because one party is physically controlling another to do something. An example of this would be if I hold your arm and drag you up the stairs to bed while you are crying because you don't want to go to bed. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control to exist are one party being physically stronger than the party being controlled and the controlled party allowing, to some extent, themselves to be controlled physically (or not being able to understand, willing to obey, things to that point that it would necessitate the control being administered).
My children often either run up the stairs on their own or try to run away from me when they suspect I am getting to the point that I am ready to drag them upstairs to bed. The reality is, however, this kind of force is only necessary (and remotely practicable) when children are large enough to walk on their own but young enough to feel the need to disobey their parents. When children become physically able to resist such force, it usually becomes ineffective.
Physical force is also justified when attempting to correct children because their behavior being engaged in may harm them. Like pulling their hand away from a campfire, for example. Physical force is never justified when it is solely intended to cause injury to another. The only exception to this, in my opinion, is when having some form of injury is risked in order to prevent some other, more severe, injury. For example, pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming car, may result in some injury, but it would be caused in order to prevent being hit by an oncoming car. It is presumed, however, that physical force is rarely justified among persons who have the ability to think and act for themselves because they are not in a state where the care of another is necessary. Children are said to be in the care, custody and control of their parents or guardians. In other words, parents are the only one's who are allowed to utilize physical force for correctional/instructional/disciplinary purposes. I suppose a very long debate could be started over the kinds of physical force that are allowed to take place by parents with their children (or those that have been placed in responsibility for children by their parents), but I am not prepared to try to outline all of that.
2. Threat of physical force or inflicting injury. This would be control that is exercised by threatening that if a particular behavior is not engaged in, then the person fears that they will experience physical pain or injury that will be inflicted by the one exerting the control over another. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control are one party having the physical ability, weapons or resources to carry out this injury or harm to a party that does not have the physical ability, weapons or resources to protect their self.
I do this all the time with my kids. I say, "You better eat your peas or you will get a spanking." I don't really say this, by the way, I only threaten to spank for much more severe disobedience, like talking back.
This is a form of control that is utilized by parents with their children all time, even though we may not be aware of it. The threat of physical injury is a very real concern for little people who are at the mercy of big people around them. Many times parents may be threatening physical injury and not even realize that they are doing it. For example, sometimes, just getting angry, yelling or moving quickly towards a little person can cause the fear of physical injury for the little person and cause them to alter their behavior.
I have even experienced this misunderstood fear on the part of others first hand. I used to live next door to a lady that was kind of paranoid. She was a single, fully grown, woman that lived alone. She lived in a house that overlooked the road leading up to it and she insisted that no plants or fence be placed in her backyard because she always wanted to be able to see the road to make sure her ex-husband wasn't on his way to "get" her. I assume she feared that he would come and inflict physical violence on her - which fear I am not discounting, because apparently when leaving a physically abusive relationship, is when people are at the highest risk of being killed by their abusive partner - however what she did one day did lead me to believe she was kind of paranoid. One day I was working in my yard on a warm sunny day. I had been working on some landscaping for a couple of hours and had gotten some sun. I was red in the face, apparently, and my two year old son wandered over into her back yard (because there was no fence) to chase a cat that was on her back porch. I yelled over to my son to come back over to our side of the property. My son didn't immediately respond so I started to walk over to retrieve him. Eventually he wandered back over to our property and we all continued about our business. The next day the police showed up at our door. They said they had received a complaint from our neighbor who said I was all red in the face in her backyard carrying a shovel and yelling. She was afraid I was digging up, and taking my anger out on, some weeds in her back yard and thought I was coming for her next, I guess (she never pulled her weeds, so I could have easily gotten very upset that I had to look at them all the time). The police said they were sorry to bother us, but said they had to make sure I was not a real threat and get our side of the story. I could not believe that she would call the police on me! Needless to say, we were not on much speaking terms after that.
My neighbor apparently felt threatened by me being red-faced, yelling over to my son and carrying a shovel. I feel bad that some people live in such fear that a slight misunderstanding causes them to feel the need to call the police. I guess I cannot discount people, or their bad experiences with physical harm being inflicted by another, but I do think it can get to a point of being unjustifiably paranoid. This further illustrates that sometimes the threat of harm can be interpreted to one person where no threat to someone else is evident. It makes me wonder what can be done when one party is constantly accusing the other of threatening physical violence when that is not their intent and no physical violence has ever been committed?
Threats of violence as a means to control others can be used by so many different parties in so many situations. It can be used by children against their parents, parents against children, spouses against each other, neighbors against each other, communities and, most visibly, countries against each other. As to the merits of this form of threatening to inflict injury to control others, I am also not prepared to write about that. What I will say, however, is that the threat of physical violence as a means to control should diminish as people show that they have no intention, or ability, to carry out the threat.
3. Threatening to inflict physical injury on oneself if a certain behavior is not engaged in. We would say this is pretty foolish because it is based on the assumption that if someone we care about hurts their self the other party will care enough to not let that happen. Sometimes this is a pretty big assumption. Usually when someone hurts their body intentionally, I just laugh. Of course, the laughter becomes more awkward the more it becomes evident they might be causing such injury to their person that it could threaten their life. However, even at that point, I sometimes just can't stop laughing.
On my mission, we were with our zone leaders going to a members house for dinner and, on our way into the house, my zone leaders companion found a fire ant hill. Where I served my mission in south Texas there are a lot of fire ants. We all joked about how these fire ants could literally cause a lot of pain if someone were to be bitten by them. So this Elder says, "I'll stick my arm on the ant hill, and see how long I can keep it there, and see what happens." Of course, after a while, the ants came out and started climbing on his arm and biting him. About 2 or 3 seconds after he put his arm on the ant hill, I started laughing uncontrollably. It turns out, he started to experience an allergic reaction to the ant bites and had to be rushed to the hospital. It was sometime on the way to the hospital that I finally stopped laughing...even though I couldn't help but let out a little chuckle every now and again when I thought about how stupid a move it was that he made.
4. Emotional manipulation. This is when one party attempts to make an appeal to the emotional center (or response) of another person to move them to engage in a behavior. I think forms of emotional manipulation are extremely numerous. Suffice it to say that it involves attempting to arouse an emotion in one party and then telling them that the emotion they are feeling is evidence that they should engage in a certain behavior. Threat of violence and threat of violence to oneself, are forms of emotional manipulation because the fear of harm is the emotion that is utilized to invite a behavior that would otherwise not have been engaged in by the other party.
Aside from fear (which I think is the most common tool of emotional manipulation), other forms of emotional manipulation may involve; security, love, lust, compassion, conformity, sadness, sexual arousal, conviction and dependency.
What I think it all comes down to is everybody is potentially motivated (ergo controlled) by either fear or pleasure. We either fear something bad will happen if we do or don't do something or we do or don't do things because we think it will bring us pleasure.
I wonder which of these methods Satan would have used in his great plan of no-choice to bring us all back into God's presence?
Physical force? At that point we would have basically been robots being physically controlled by another entity. I wonder if we would have ever been able to resist such a force? What would have happened then? Would we eventually become so conditioned in certain behaviors/actions, that the force could eventually stop and we would not be able to act in a manner that worked against the will of the force because it became engrained in our being? A lot like muscle conditioning and ingrained memories allow us to engage in certain behaviors without even thinking about them (like riding a bike, for example). Large elephants can be restrained by a tiny chain that they could easily break. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it starts when the elephant is a baby and it is chained up. At first the elephant tries to break free, but once it realizes it is of no use, it gives up and never tries to break free again. This is a form of control through conditioning of physical force. That may have been a good plan for us too. Tell us that it isn't possible to break free of a behavior or belief for long enough and, after a while, people will stop trying.
How about the threat of physical force, harm, injury or death? This would be a fear based form of control. We would comply because we would fear death or some other form of physical pain or injury as a consequence. We would be told repeatedly that we should comply or else. We might be subjected to seeing or hearing others having the physical pain or injury inflicted on them so that we become convinced of the power of the controlling entity to administer such a punishment on us. And as long as the controlling entity maintains the power to administer such judgments/punishments, we would remain in compliance because it would remain in our best interests to do so in order to avoid the pain or suffering. I also think this form of control could be very effective on us as human beings.
What about Satan threatening to harm himself if we did not comply? I don't think this form of control would be very effective...if we placed Satan in a position that is equivalent to how most people see him today. However, what if he were promoted to being equivalent in status to a world leader or Jesus? Would we work to avoid allowing pain to come to (or feeling the need to inflict pain on himself) if we highly revered his character? Maybe to a point, but our sympathies, I think, would quickly wane as the threat of harming himself continued. We might get to a point where we would welcome the threat of violence towards himself being carried out so we could be rid of him. This would quickly be seen as selfish and would therefore not be effective for very long. This probably would not be a good form of control for us.
This brings us to emotional manipulation. I believe emotional manipulation would be an excellent form of control to be exercised by Satan to keep us in control. He would constantly be appealing to our emotions to get us to do his will. He would constantly be telling us how the emotional response he just elicited in us was clearly an indicator that we should follow him. He would point out that the emotional response is the ultimate indicator of truth for us and that our emotions should be relied on in every case (that is, as long as they are used in a manner that remains in conformity with his agenda). He would tell us to ignore any emotional response that is received outside of the controlled emotions elicited inside his programming because these are obviously deceptions designed by his enemy to distract us or lead us astray. Any emotional independence would be highly discouraged because emotional dependency would be the only way maintain control. Subjects would be told that within their group is the only place such heart-warming emotions are able to be experienced and that seeking for them outside the group setting is a waste of time because they are never experienced.
The tools of emotional control would also need to be implemented throughout a large group of God's children. For that reason, the emotional control would need to be implemented throughout some sort of organization. A strictly hierarchical organization would likely be utilized. Peer pressure would be used to encourage conformity to the "correctness" of behavior by God's children. People would be told about all the bad things that will happen to them if they ever decided to leave the group, however, since leaving or not participating would simply be absolutely prohibited, these appeals to our emotions elicited when thinking about being separated from the group would be absolutely essential. Basically, no one would be permitted to leave, but they might be made afraid to leave by constantly being reminded about how miserable anyone is that ever decided to leave the group. The reasons for leaving would be considered irrelevant. The misery and, almost certain, loneliness of those that leave the group would be the constant mantra of the believers...err, I mean, subjects.
Of course, as part of that emotional manipulation, fear conditioning would be utilized to try and ingrain a fear of seeking information that originates outside the group-think standards of information. Satan's subjects would be told that to seek information from outside Satan's organization would be tantamount to heresy and would be strictly forbidden. Those enticed by such outside information would quickly be discovered because everyone would be taught to turn in those that are guilty of being exposed to, or searching out, such things. Subjects would be told that all other sources of information originating outside the group are false and are only designed to deceive and misinform. Any possible consideration of such information would quickly be dispelled by accusing the author of the information of attempting to lead others astray.
In addition, emotional control would be exercised by telling us our bodies are something to be ashamed of and that our body represents an enemy to the will of our noble leader. Simply because anything that is not directly controllable through fear or some other form of emotional manipulation (like our body) is a threat to the power of the leader and needs to be quickly put in its place as something to be feared and placed under strict and constant supervision for any deviant behaviors. Deviant behaviors would be quickly made out to be bad, forbidden and quickly dealt with through some form of punishment (or fear of punishment).
Anyway, I think you get the idea of what things would be like if Satan's plan had won the day in the pre-existence and one, or all, of the above forms of control were utilized to keep us in line and force us to return to God's all knowing and all loving presence. Thank goodness Satan is not our ruler and our God today. I can only imagine how terrible the world would be if that were the case.
P.S. My thanks to the Stake Presidents blog for my inspiration on these thoughts found here.
What are the various forms of control over people and how are they manifest?
Based in my experience, control can be exercised in one of several ways:
1. Physical force. This would be causing another to engage in a behavior because one party is physically controlling another to do something. An example of this would be if I hold your arm and drag you up the stairs to bed while you are crying because you don't want to go to bed. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control to exist are one party being physically stronger than the party being controlled and the controlled party allowing, to some extent, themselves to be controlled physically (or not being able to understand, willing to obey, things to that point that it would necessitate the control being administered).
My children often either run up the stairs on their own or try to run away from me when they suspect I am getting to the point that I am ready to drag them upstairs to bed. The reality is, however, this kind of force is only necessary (and remotely practicable) when children are large enough to walk on their own but young enough to feel the need to disobey their parents. When children become physically able to resist such force, it usually becomes ineffective.
Physical force is also justified when attempting to correct children because their behavior being engaged in may harm them. Like pulling their hand away from a campfire, for example. Physical force is never justified when it is solely intended to cause injury to another. The only exception to this, in my opinion, is when having some form of injury is risked in order to prevent some other, more severe, injury. For example, pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming car, may result in some injury, but it would be caused in order to prevent being hit by an oncoming car. It is presumed, however, that physical force is rarely justified among persons who have the ability to think and act for themselves because they are not in a state where the care of another is necessary. Children are said to be in the care, custody and control of their parents or guardians. In other words, parents are the only one's who are allowed to utilize physical force for correctional/instructional/disciplinary purposes. I suppose a very long debate could be started over the kinds of physical force that are allowed to take place by parents with their children (or those that have been placed in responsibility for children by their parents), but I am not prepared to try to outline all of that.
2. Threat of physical force or inflicting injury. This would be control that is exercised by threatening that if a particular behavior is not engaged in, then the person fears that they will experience physical pain or injury that will be inflicted by the one exerting the control over another. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control are one party having the physical ability, weapons or resources to carry out this injury or harm to a party that does not have the physical ability, weapons or resources to protect their self.
I do this all the time with my kids. I say, "You better eat your peas or you will get a spanking." I don't really say this, by the way, I only threaten to spank for much more severe disobedience, like talking back.
This is a form of control that is utilized by parents with their children all time, even though we may not be aware of it. The threat of physical injury is a very real concern for little people who are at the mercy of big people around them. Many times parents may be threatening physical injury and not even realize that they are doing it. For example, sometimes, just getting angry, yelling or moving quickly towards a little person can cause the fear of physical injury for the little person and cause them to alter their behavior.
I have even experienced this misunderstood fear on the part of others first hand. I used to live next door to a lady that was kind of paranoid. She was a single, fully grown, woman that lived alone. She lived in a house that overlooked the road leading up to it and she insisted that no plants or fence be placed in her backyard because she always wanted to be able to see the road to make sure her ex-husband wasn't on his way to "get" her. I assume she feared that he would come and inflict physical violence on her - which fear I am not discounting, because apparently when leaving a physically abusive relationship, is when people are at the highest risk of being killed by their abusive partner - however what she did one day did lead me to believe she was kind of paranoid. One day I was working in my yard on a warm sunny day. I had been working on some landscaping for a couple of hours and had gotten some sun. I was red in the face, apparently, and my two year old son wandered over into her back yard (because there was no fence) to chase a cat that was on her back porch. I yelled over to my son to come back over to our side of the property. My son didn't immediately respond so I started to walk over to retrieve him. Eventually he wandered back over to our property and we all continued about our business. The next day the police showed up at our door. They said they had received a complaint from our neighbor who said I was all red in the face in her backyard carrying a shovel and yelling. She was afraid I was digging up, and taking my anger out on, some weeds in her back yard and thought I was coming for her next, I guess (she never pulled her weeds, so I could have easily gotten very upset that I had to look at them all the time). The police said they were sorry to bother us, but said they had to make sure I was not a real threat and get our side of the story. I could not believe that she would call the police on me! Needless to say, we were not on much speaking terms after that.
My neighbor apparently felt threatened by me being red-faced, yelling over to my son and carrying a shovel. I feel bad that some people live in such fear that a slight misunderstanding causes them to feel the need to call the police. I guess I cannot discount people, or their bad experiences with physical harm being inflicted by another, but I do think it can get to a point of being unjustifiably paranoid. This further illustrates that sometimes the threat of harm can be interpreted to one person where no threat to someone else is evident. It makes me wonder what can be done when one party is constantly accusing the other of threatening physical violence when that is not their intent and no physical violence has ever been committed?
Threats of violence as a means to control others can be used by so many different parties in so many situations. It can be used by children against their parents, parents against children, spouses against each other, neighbors against each other, communities and, most visibly, countries against each other. As to the merits of this form of threatening to inflict injury to control others, I am also not prepared to write about that. What I will say, however, is that the threat of physical violence as a means to control should diminish as people show that they have no intention, or ability, to carry out the threat.
3. Threatening to inflict physical injury on oneself if a certain behavior is not engaged in. We would say this is pretty foolish because it is based on the assumption that if someone we care about hurts their self the other party will care enough to not let that happen. Sometimes this is a pretty big assumption. Usually when someone hurts their body intentionally, I just laugh. Of course, the laughter becomes more awkward the more it becomes evident they might be causing such injury to their person that it could threaten their life. However, even at that point, I sometimes just can't stop laughing.
On my mission, we were with our zone leaders going to a members house for dinner and, on our way into the house, my zone leaders companion found a fire ant hill. Where I served my mission in south Texas there are a lot of fire ants. We all joked about how these fire ants could literally cause a lot of pain if someone were to be bitten by them. So this Elder says, "I'll stick my arm on the ant hill, and see how long I can keep it there, and see what happens." Of course, after a while, the ants came out and started climbing on his arm and biting him. About 2 or 3 seconds after he put his arm on the ant hill, I started laughing uncontrollably. It turns out, he started to experience an allergic reaction to the ant bites and had to be rushed to the hospital. It was sometime on the way to the hospital that I finally stopped laughing...even though I couldn't help but let out a little chuckle every now and again when I thought about how stupid a move it was that he made.
4. Emotional manipulation. This is when one party attempts to make an appeal to the emotional center (or response) of another person to move them to engage in a behavior. I think forms of emotional manipulation are extremely numerous. Suffice it to say that it involves attempting to arouse an emotion in one party and then telling them that the emotion they are feeling is evidence that they should engage in a certain behavior. Threat of violence and threat of violence to oneself, are forms of emotional manipulation because the fear of harm is the emotion that is utilized to invite a behavior that would otherwise not have been engaged in by the other party.
Aside from fear (which I think is the most common tool of emotional manipulation), other forms of emotional manipulation may involve; security, love, lust, compassion, conformity, sadness, sexual arousal, conviction and dependency.
What I think it all comes down to is everybody is potentially motivated (ergo controlled) by either fear or pleasure. We either fear something bad will happen if we do or don't do something or we do or don't do things because we think it will bring us pleasure.
I wonder which of these methods Satan would have used in his great plan of no-choice to bring us all back into God's presence?
Physical force? At that point we would have basically been robots being physically controlled by another entity. I wonder if we would have ever been able to resist such a force? What would have happened then? Would we eventually become so conditioned in certain behaviors/actions, that the force could eventually stop and we would not be able to act in a manner that worked against the will of the force because it became engrained in our being? A lot like muscle conditioning and ingrained memories allow us to engage in certain behaviors without even thinking about them (like riding a bike, for example). Large elephants can be restrained by a tiny chain that they could easily break. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it starts when the elephant is a baby and it is chained up. At first the elephant tries to break free, but once it realizes it is of no use, it gives up and never tries to break free again. This is a form of control through conditioning of physical force. That may have been a good plan for us too. Tell us that it isn't possible to break free of a behavior or belief for long enough and, after a while, people will stop trying.
How about the threat of physical force, harm, injury or death? This would be a fear based form of control. We would comply because we would fear death or some other form of physical pain or injury as a consequence. We would be told repeatedly that we should comply or else. We might be subjected to seeing or hearing others having the physical pain or injury inflicted on them so that we become convinced of the power of the controlling entity to administer such a punishment on us. And as long as the controlling entity maintains the power to administer such judgments/punishments, we would remain in compliance because it would remain in our best interests to do so in order to avoid the pain or suffering. I also think this form of control could be very effective on us as human beings.
What about Satan threatening to harm himself if we did not comply? I don't think this form of control would be very effective...if we placed Satan in a position that is equivalent to how most people see him today. However, what if he were promoted to being equivalent in status to a world leader or Jesus? Would we work to avoid allowing pain to come to (or feeling the need to inflict pain on himself) if we highly revered his character? Maybe to a point, but our sympathies, I think, would quickly wane as the threat of harming himself continued. We might get to a point where we would welcome the threat of violence towards himself being carried out so we could be rid of him. This would quickly be seen as selfish and would therefore not be effective for very long. This probably would not be a good form of control for us.
This brings us to emotional manipulation. I believe emotional manipulation would be an excellent form of control to be exercised by Satan to keep us in control. He would constantly be appealing to our emotions to get us to do his will. He would constantly be telling us how the emotional response he just elicited in us was clearly an indicator that we should follow him. He would point out that the emotional response is the ultimate indicator of truth for us and that our emotions should be relied on in every case (that is, as long as they are used in a manner that remains in conformity with his agenda). He would tell us to ignore any emotional response that is received outside of the controlled emotions elicited inside his programming because these are obviously deceptions designed by his enemy to distract us or lead us astray. Any emotional independence would be highly discouraged because emotional dependency would be the only way maintain control. Subjects would be told that within their group is the only place such heart-warming emotions are able to be experienced and that seeking for them outside the group setting is a waste of time because they are never experienced.
The tools of emotional control would also need to be implemented throughout a large group of God's children. For that reason, the emotional control would need to be implemented throughout some sort of organization. A strictly hierarchical organization would likely be utilized. Peer pressure would be used to encourage conformity to the "correctness" of behavior by God's children. People would be told about all the bad things that will happen to them if they ever decided to leave the group, however, since leaving or not participating would simply be absolutely prohibited, these appeals to our emotions elicited when thinking about being separated from the group would be absolutely essential. Basically, no one would be permitted to leave, but they might be made afraid to leave by constantly being reminded about how miserable anyone is that ever decided to leave the group. The reasons for leaving would be considered irrelevant. The misery and, almost certain, loneliness of those that leave the group would be the constant mantra of the believers...err, I mean, subjects.
Of course, as part of that emotional manipulation, fear conditioning would be utilized to try and ingrain a fear of seeking information that originates outside the group-think standards of information. Satan's subjects would be told that to seek information from outside Satan's organization would be tantamount to heresy and would be strictly forbidden. Those enticed by such outside information would quickly be discovered because everyone would be taught to turn in those that are guilty of being exposed to, or searching out, such things. Subjects would be told that all other sources of information originating outside the group are false and are only designed to deceive and misinform. Any possible consideration of such information would quickly be dispelled by accusing the author of the information of attempting to lead others astray.
In addition, emotional control would be exercised by telling us our bodies are something to be ashamed of and that our body represents an enemy to the will of our noble leader. Simply because anything that is not directly controllable through fear or some other form of emotional manipulation (like our body) is a threat to the power of the leader and needs to be quickly put in its place as something to be feared and placed under strict and constant supervision for any deviant behaviors. Deviant behaviors would be quickly made out to be bad, forbidden and quickly dealt with through some form of punishment (or fear of punishment).
Anyway, I think you get the idea of what things would be like if Satan's plan had won the day in the pre-existence and one, or all, of the above forms of control were utilized to keep us in line and force us to return to God's all knowing and all loving presence. Thank goodness Satan is not our ruler and our God today. I can only imagine how terrible the world would be if that were the case.
P.S. My thanks to the Stake Presidents blog for my inspiration on these thoughts found here.
(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)
Monday, August 16, 2010
Existence of God and Free Willy
I read a blog post here that reminded me of some thoughts I have had surrounding what evidence it would take regarding the existence of God that would be necessary for me to accept the existence of God.
For me this question is inseparable from the question of free will. The first question I would want an answer to is; Do we truly have free will and is the principle of free will one that is maintained absolutely for everyone?
To endeavor to answer this question, let's look first at the opposite of free will. The alternative to the concept of free will would be that our life outcome is the result of some form of predestination setup by an omnipotent (i.e all powerful) and omniscient (i.e. all knowing) being who really has no spontaneity because everything is already known and planned out exactly how it will happen (which sounds kind of boring). If God is, in fact, omniscient, does it mean He/She/It knows past, present and future? I would think so. If that is the case, then free will is an illusion and does not exist. If free will does, however, exist absolutely, then this same heavenly being is only omniscient to a point (could we really say God is omniscient then?) working really hard to react to every single stimulus and response to make sure that free will is maintained at all costs and is not really omniscient, but is omnipotent. A third possibility is that God is omniscient and omnipotent but is not all loving because He/She/It allows bad things to happen to good people (at least according to our traditional understanding of love - which could use further clarification as to what it means, I suppose).
Regarding predestination; I think most religious people reject the idea of predestination because the idea of us having absolute free will is the most encouraging possibility for us to be able to determine our life outcome and potential redemption/salvation in the hereafter. Otherwise, our eternal existence is already planned out, so this life becomes pretty irrelevant. In the religious context, what often follows the question of whether or not God is omniscient is an explanation that 1) He either knows what will happen in the future and does nothing about it (i.e. maintaining our illusion of free will that ultimately does not exist) or 2) He is only omniscient when it comes to expected outcomes, so He/She/It pretty much knows what will happen to you, based on a universal law of consequences, but again, chooses to do nothing about your/our consequences. In either case, the idea of an omnipotent AND loving God is just thrown out the window. Unless, the epitome of love is letting people learn through sad experience and pointless death, destruction and loss which, in many cases, does not appear to readily manifest its lesson or meaning/purpose.
Of course, an idea known as fore-ordination is one that creeps in every once in a while. I guess this would be the idea that we are given the potential to achieve a life outcome but the actual accomplishment of it is entirely up to us. This does not violate the concept of free will since we still can choose whether or not to live up to our potential in that scenario. So, based on the above, it would appear the idea of free will (i.e. our ability to choose our life outcome) exists absolutely as taught by the religious. I don't think I could find many that would dispute this conclusion.
If that is the case, then, there will never be anything that will happen to us that will violate our freedom of election to choose what we do (in response to stimuli) in any given situation. Based on my limited observations, this appears to be the case (Except where some people try to limit my choices by imposing rules that follow their whims instead of my desires).
So, if the question is asked, "What evidence would it take for you to accept that God exists?" I would have to respond by wondering, what evidence is a God who will not violate the principle of free will going to be willing to provide?
It seems to me that, if God appeared to me right now and said, now you see me, so you must believe. Then slapped me across the face for good measure to make sure I got the message and the sting would help me know that God was real. Would this not be a violation of my free will? In other words, wouldn't my freedom of choice not always be upheld? Would I retain the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God if He/She/It did that? I don't think so. Which leads me to the conclusion that God will never do something which takes away my freedom to choose. Since the act of appearing before me would take away my freedom to choose whether or not God exists, or not, it seems that God would not do that.
Why do believers insist on asking then, what evidence for God's existence would it take for you to believe? When no evidence can (or will ever) possibly be found if the principle of free will is maintained absolutely. Unless, of course, you believe in a deity that maintains free will except when it comes to subtly steering you towards a belief in He/She/It.
In any event, the concept of free will has been pronounced by religion to exist absolutely (at least as far as I am aware) in the context of powers granted to us and upheld by the divine creator that religion claims to receive direction and guidance from. So, if the religion is shown to be a man-made creation, the concept of free will (and any answers surrounding whether or not we have it absolutely) are pretty much null and void.
The only logical response to these questions is to utilize the scientific method to deduce what our present state of affairs is here on this planet and whether or not the concept of free will is even an important one. I would point out that if religion is man-made, the emphasis on free will comes out sounding more like an excuse to try and explain the state we find ourselves in (a.k.a. why bad things happen to good people) and not so much like a divine revelation from a being who either has everything already planned out that will happen (i.e. follows predestination) or is tip-toeing around making sure that there is not any overwhelming evidence on one side or the other (i.e. free will is maintained absolutely). The belief about how active a role God plays in our lives is one that usually serves to answer these questions.
See here for more discussion of this topic.
Sorry that Free Willy didn't make it into this post. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of Free Willy fans that are extremely disappointed now.
For me this question is inseparable from the question of free will. The first question I would want an answer to is; Do we truly have free will and is the principle of free will one that is maintained absolutely for everyone?
To endeavor to answer this question, let's look first at the opposite of free will. The alternative to the concept of free will would be that our life outcome is the result of some form of predestination setup by an omnipotent (i.e all powerful) and omniscient (i.e. all knowing) being who really has no spontaneity because everything is already known and planned out exactly how it will happen (which sounds kind of boring). If God is, in fact, omniscient, does it mean He/She/It knows past, present and future? I would think so. If that is the case, then free will is an illusion and does not exist. If free will does, however, exist absolutely, then this same heavenly being is only omniscient to a point (could we really say God is omniscient then?) working really hard to react to every single stimulus and response to make sure that free will is maintained at all costs and is not really omniscient, but is omnipotent. A third possibility is that God is omniscient and omnipotent but is not all loving because He/She/It allows bad things to happen to good people (at least according to our traditional understanding of love - which could use further clarification as to what it means, I suppose).
Regarding predestination; I think most religious people reject the idea of predestination because the idea of us having absolute free will is the most encouraging possibility for us to be able to determine our life outcome and potential redemption/salvation in the hereafter. Otherwise, our eternal existence is already planned out, so this life becomes pretty irrelevant. In the religious context, what often follows the question of whether or not God is omniscient is an explanation that 1) He either knows what will happen in the future and does nothing about it (i.e. maintaining our illusion of free will that ultimately does not exist) or 2) He is only omniscient when it comes to expected outcomes, so He/She/It pretty much knows what will happen to you, based on a universal law of consequences, but again, chooses to do nothing about your/our consequences. In either case, the idea of an omnipotent AND loving God is just thrown out the window. Unless, the epitome of love is letting people learn through sad experience and pointless death, destruction and loss which, in many cases, does not appear to readily manifest its lesson or meaning/purpose.
Of course, an idea known as fore-ordination is one that creeps in every once in a while. I guess this would be the idea that we are given the potential to achieve a life outcome but the actual accomplishment of it is entirely up to us. This does not violate the concept of free will since we still can choose whether or not to live up to our potential in that scenario. So, based on the above, it would appear the idea of free will (i.e. our ability to choose our life outcome) exists absolutely as taught by the religious. I don't think I could find many that would dispute this conclusion.
If that is the case, then, there will never be anything that will happen to us that will violate our freedom of election to choose what we do (in response to stimuli) in any given situation. Based on my limited observations, this appears to be the case (Except where some people try to limit my choices by imposing rules that follow their whims instead of my desires).
So, if the question is asked, "What evidence would it take for you to accept that God exists?" I would have to respond by wondering, what evidence is a God who will not violate the principle of free will going to be willing to provide?
It seems to me that, if God appeared to me right now and said, now you see me, so you must believe. Then slapped me across the face for good measure to make sure I got the message and the sting would help me know that God was real. Would this not be a violation of my free will? In other words, wouldn't my freedom of choice not always be upheld? Would I retain the ability to choose whether or not to believe in God if He/She/It did that? I don't think so. Which leads me to the conclusion that God will never do something which takes away my freedom to choose. Since the act of appearing before me would take away my freedom to choose whether or not God exists, or not, it seems that God would not do that.
Why do believers insist on asking then, what evidence for God's existence would it take for you to believe? When no evidence can (or will ever) possibly be found if the principle of free will is maintained absolutely. Unless, of course, you believe in a deity that maintains free will except when it comes to subtly steering you towards a belief in He/She/It.
In any event, the concept of free will has been pronounced by religion to exist absolutely (at least as far as I am aware) in the context of powers granted to us and upheld by the divine creator that religion claims to receive direction and guidance from. So, if the religion is shown to be a man-made creation, the concept of free will (and any answers surrounding whether or not we have it absolutely) are pretty much null and void.
The only logical response to these questions is to utilize the scientific method to deduce what our present state of affairs is here on this planet and whether or not the concept of free will is even an important one. I would point out that if religion is man-made, the emphasis on free will comes out sounding more like an excuse to try and explain the state we find ourselves in (a.k.a. why bad things happen to good people) and not so much like a divine revelation from a being who either has everything already planned out that will happen (i.e. follows predestination) or is tip-toeing around making sure that there is not any overwhelming evidence on one side or the other (i.e. free will is maintained absolutely). The belief about how active a role God plays in our lives is one that usually serves to answer these questions.
See here for more discussion of this topic.
Sorry that Free Willy didn't make it into this post. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of Free Willy fans that are extremely disappointed now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)