Free Will?

Here goes nothing..

free will
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Do we really have free will?

I have been thinking about free will and determinism for quite some time. A few months back, I believed that men have free will and that men have control to its choices, decisions, and actions. But just recently, I read a couple of articles and arguments that shows that we do not have free will and that free will is just an illusion. I think (as of the moment) that we (men) do not have free will, we do not have control to our choices, and that we just think that we have free will (thus an illusion). I am not really a hundred percent certain about this because I am still in the process of learning about free will and determinism but let me just show you as to why I (for the moment) do not believe in free will. The point of this post is to simply show that our decisions, choices, and actions are not really 'free' at all.

There are two reasons why I believe that we do not have free will. Causality and chance. We end up choosing an option because of these two or a combination of these two. And both causality (cause and effect) and chance (random) shows that we do not have control to our choices.

Let's say I am walking from my work to my house one afternoon. Before I can arrive at my house I have to either pass one of two streets, Street A or Street B. I can arrive at my house in 25 minutes if I will take Street A and Street A is not that safe. On the other hand if I will take on Street B I will arrive at my house for only 10 minutes and it is much safer than Street A. Street B is nearer and a much safer course than Street A so I took Street B. I took Street B because of of the said reason and this reason (cause) led me to take Street B. As you can see, this decision is not really "free" because it is determined by an external force (the danger in taking Street A). This external force is called a determinant, or something that has a role in causing, or determining an outcome. A determinant could also be internal (genetics/biological).

But what if one afternoon I took on Street A for no particular reason whatsoever (random). Would this scenario tell me that I have free will? No. It is because this chain of purely 'random' event is, by definition, not really controlled. If it is, then it would not be random. Even a combination of causes and a random event or random events and cause/s still do not show that choices are 'free' because we cannot control chance and causality.

All in all, our choices are determined by determinants (external or internal force) or by chance. These two reasons led me to believe (right now) that we do not have free will.

Objections and criticisms are welcome.

"RH Bill: A Moral Evil" : Fail

This(click the link if the video above do not work) is a video by a Father Arellano that I found in Facebook. The video is about why should RH Bill should not be passed in Congress. I believe that Father here is making a big mistake and is spreading wrong information about the RH Bill. Either Father here is spreading lies or he simply is ignorant about the issues and problems our country faces (is there any other possibility?). Maybe he was not able to read and study well what RH Bill is and what this bill is not before making that video. I will tackle below the wrong information and the twisted logic that Father Arellano have and prove him wrong.

1.)The bill promotes 2 child policy

This is the first reason this priest stated as to why Filipinos should repel RH bill. But the bill do not really promote 2 child policy. Maybe Father should've read and studied the bill before making a comment. He then states that five to seven children would be an ideal Filipino family. How can 5-7 children a family be ideal? Even a middle class family would have a hard time bringing up 2-3 children. What more a to low income family with 5-7 children. This priest do not even mention his basis to this statement. Will the Catholic church pay for the food and shelter for these families? It is really ironic because Father here promotes 5-7 kids per family as 'ideal' and he himself is a celibate (or is he really?).

2.)Sex education is pornography

How can sex education be pornography even to eight year olds? What part of "education" this educated(?) priest do not understand? Sex education is not a pornography. Sex education "educates" people about sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, contraception, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. Basically it aims to educate people about human sexual behavior. It is not the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer.

3.)The Bill is against Catholic Faith

So what now if the bill is against the Catholic faith? It would not follow that it should not be passed just because it is against the Catholic faith. The Philippines is not only composed of Catholic faith. We have Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, and other faiths. Not to mention agnostics, atheists, and deists. Priests like this should not join in the affairs and decision making of the state. Majority of them (if not all) are not really educated well in state related issues like this one and that their doctrines and/or beliefs could hinder progress in our country. I mean they do not really care about the issues and problems our country face. They are more concern in following the doctrines and beliefs.

4.)RH Bill kills and is pro-abortion

The RH Bill do not really kill and is not pro abortion. No where in the bill that states that abortion is legal or that it would be legalized. In fact, it prevents unwanted pregnancies that could lead to abortion (and most importantly, it educates). Unplanned and unwanted pregnancies result in children that can't be fed or sent to school. Remember that contraceptive is different from abortion. As to the killings like genocide/holocaust that Father mentioned, I honestly do not get it. How can this bill kills?

5.)Philippines is the conscience in Asia

Are we really? In fact we are one of the most corrupt country in Asia and maybe in the world.

6.) Anti Labor

Let me quote a comment here from limestories in youtube.

According to Fr. Arellano, the country's number one export resource is its labor? Now I'm scared. How can that be a celebration of life when a man's life per se is degraded, sent to work and toil overseas to be away from their families and friends. It robs the life from the living.

Also, over population would just result more unemployed people.

So these are just some of the points that Father Bing Arellano states in his video. As you can see, he is either telling and spreading lies which is contradicting to the 9th Commandment of his God or he is simply ignorant to the problems and issues that our country faces. I hope that someday he will realize that he is making a big mistake here in influencing people not to pass this bill.

Theodicies

Our country was hit by two strong storms in the last few weeks. If my memory serves me right, there was only less than a week before another storm hit the northern part of our country again. These two storms caused a lot of casualties. It killed more than 200 people, displaced thousands of people from their homes, and destroyed a lot of properties. Not to mention the trauma that it left to the survivors especially to the young ones.

Instances like this is a challenge to the lives of the people who are affected. How will they move on with their lives when they have almost nothing left? How will they move on if their loved ones were killed? Where will they get money to start again? Where will they get help? I think all of these questions and problems can be answered and solved as time will pass by or if eventually some will help these people. Time will heal the wounds as a quote say. But a more important question still remains unanswered for a long time. Well many have tried but I guess their answers still faces a lot of criticisms and contradictions making the problem still a problem.

Where was the God that believers, mostly Christians, claim to be true/existing, loving, and powerful? Why God would allow this to happen? Well these questions are not really original and new but I think it would be good to ask this question again and again for more emphasis. I asked these questions subtly (subtly so that they will not be offended) to my theist friends and they all have their own explanations and theodicies. I wasn't able to reply and criticize them because of time constraints and that I do not want to offend, and  humiliate them. So below is the four and most common theodicies that I encountered and my reply and criticisms to these four.  

Punishment Reply. The people that suffered in the in the two storms were just punished by God because these people disobeyed God laws or that these people were very sinful. 

My reply: Not all of the people that were killed or suffered are sinful. There were children and good people too who suffered and died on the said storms. Theists could reply that this is just a result of the original sin. But I say that this is not just and it do not show that God is loving. I mean, is it just to punish the grand grand grand grand grand grand100x children of a person who committed a sin long ago?  You know the answer. 

The Heavenly Reply. These people and children may have suffered and died but they will be compensated many times in heaven/eternal life. 

My reply: But what's the point of them suffering here on earth? Why did'nt God put them straight to heaven even before they suffered? Heaven do not justify their suffering. This act is immoral even if heaven is so good because God could've put them to heaven or give them eternal life without suffering them. 

Soul making theodicy. This contends that God allows evil because this builds up a positive character to the victims. And this compensate evil and suffering. 

My reply: Is this how a loving God build up positive character to its followers? I think there are still many other ways that is less evil and crude. Also evil and suffering do not necessarily build up a positive character. Greater losses also occur. Families would break up, morale would go down, people would turn away from God. 

The Privation response. Evil is just the absence of good just as darkness the absence of light. 

My reply: Evil is not really a privation of good. If you are hurt, say you were punched or kicked in the ass, you know that it hurts. It is a positive sensation and not just the absence of pleasure. People who are numb or asleep do not feel pain, even though they experience the absence of pleasure and any other feeling. 

So where's your God now? 

On the origin of the universe

I have been following a discussion in the Filipino Freethinkers Forum regarding the origin of the universe. Well the thread (about why do people decide to become atheists) was not really about the origin of the cosmos but it suddenly turned into this topic. A deist, named innerminds, posed a question to atheists regarding the origin of the cosmos. He asked,

Can I pose a slight variant to the question why people decide to become atheists? I'd like to ask: Why do atheists believe that either the universe had always existed in one form or another for all eternity or was an accident in nature?

And please don't answer with "Because the idea of a creator is absurd". Remember, the 'real' atheists do not simply not believe in God but altogether rejects the idea of God, so please don't include God in your answers.

This question is basically geared towards atheists. I think that atheists (around the world) could have different views regarding the origin of cosmos. I mean one must not really expect that all atheists around the world would only either believe in an ever existing universe or an accidental universe. Other atheists also have other ideas and/or theories regarding the origin of the universe. Anyways I answered the question by saying that it is more simpler to suppose that the universe do not have a cause than it was caused by some entity, called God/Deity (which I will further discuss in another post). And yes, I mentioned the word "God". LOL. I am not supposed to mention it based on his 2nd paragraph but, my bad, I was too attached by the question in bold. And also I thought that his intention to that question is to trap atheists into believing or making atheists realize that the universe (logically speaking) must have a cause.

Upon thinking and pondering on the question (in bold) and also considering his 2nd paragraph (to answer it w/o mentioning God), I thought that it was kind of difficult to answer. It is because, as an atheist (agnostic atheist to be exact), I always tend depend on the flaws of the arguments (and stupidity of "some") of the believers. I base my answers/arguments/even my non-belief to the flaws of the believers. And that's the one of the very reason of my non-belief.

But what if there's no religion, no churches, no "divine" messengers? (Of course there would also be no believers and atheists:) What would be my theory of the origin of the universe? Assuming ceteris paribus, I would still believe in the Big Bang theory. Simply because its the only theory about the origin of the universe that I am familiar with and because it is the only(?) theory that is being widely accepted by scientists today. Believers argue that the Big Bang singularity begs for a cause/creator which is un-atheistic. Thus a contradiction (me being an atheist believing in a singularity). But we (including believers) simply do not know what caused the Big Bang. We simply do not know because science do not have enough evidence to point or explain what really happened before the Big Bang. 

Now, believers (theists/fundies/deists) use this singularity to argue the existence of a creator or cause. This is also logical. But is it really sound? I will answer this question in my next (or next, next) post. :) 

Unknowable

Its been a while since I made a post here. I have been busy with my work lately and I have been traveling for the past few weeks. Although I thought some good topics to write about, I really forgot some of them and maybe I just got lazy to write them here (aside from the time constraints). So anyways, here's something that is a little philosophical and religious-ly that's been crawling in my mind for the past five minutes (LOL), the unknowable.

Of course when I say unknowable, I mean God as unknowable. Now according to the dictionary, unknowable is something that is not knowable; (especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding). I want to write something about it because there seems to be a problem with it when one relates it to God. Some believers, including some deists, believes that God is unknowable. They say that God is beyond our human understanding and experience. That's why they can't explain (or have the difficulty explaining) the Problem of Evil or some other questions regarding God or prove God's existence or why the deist's God do not intervene in their lives. So they hide in the safe armor of the unknowable God.

There seems to be a contradiction in this unknowable God because to say that something is unknowable, one must first have knowledge about it. Now some Christians (and Muslims) say that God is unknowable. Their basis to the existence of their God is their respective holy books. But their holy books tells us something, in fact almost everything, about their God and these holy books shows the personality of their God (example, Jesus Christ as told by the Gospels). Thus making their God known or knowable. We can clearly see and know their God which really contradicts their claim that their God is unknowable.

To finish this post I would like to quote something from a website where I got some of the ideas I wrote above..

Those who reject the knowable God are standing before a closed door, wondering what, if anything, lies on the other side. There is no handle. They shake the door but it does not open. They knock on it and hear sometimes silence and sometimes echoes and wonder these responses mean.

Believers interpret those silences and echoes as proof that God awaits them. Others are more sceptical. The closed door says nothing; proof must be found elsewhere. At the end of the day, the question is remains: if God is unknowable, how do we know if he exists?

Heck, this post is short. At least I wrote something :S

Rants

So here's what the pastor (reverend) in my family's church said last Sunday that really caught my attention. (Yes, I go to church. It is because I am a DISCREET infidel.) She said something like this, "My investment with my husband went bad because we did not seek the approval of God". I was really laughing hard deep inside and I noticed the people around me were really taking it seriously. Then the reverend said that we should always seek God first before making difficult decisions so that God can guide us to the right path and that he will surely help us. And guess what is the basis of the pastor in saying that God will surely help us if we'll just seek God? Of course the Holy Bible. She mentioned a few verses to back this up! What a good basis!

I can't really understand as to why she still believes in that book. She's good at it and she is reading it almost everyday and still dint notice its flaws? How come pastors like her who reads the Bible (and study them) dint notice that it is full of errors, absurdities, and contradictions to the verses and to reality? Heck, they even teach these verses to people and tell the people that everything that is written in this ancient book is true.

Well to you Mrs. Pastor and to all pastors out there, why should we believe in the Bible despite its glaring errors, contradictions, absurdities? Why should we believe in the Bible and not the Quran or any other holy book? Why not use your mind and think and stop fooling people and teaching them lies!

Death of INC Leader

I read a post at Facebook that a mom don't want to celebrate her daughter's birthday today because of the death of their (cult) leader. Yeah, you read that right. A mom do not want to celebrate her daughter's birthday because of the death of their beloved leader. Poor child. 

Well this reason number 1047 as to why religion poisons everything.