Adam, Eve, Free Will And Determinism

Transcript of my YouTube video of the same name…

Introduction

For anyone who’s seen my last video, “Free Will And Determinism,” you’ve got a pretty good idea of where I’m coming from in terms of belief in Free Will – that at this point, I don’t see a reason to believe we have Free Will. With this in mind, I was asked by Silvermage87, in a response to my video on the immorality of Hell, as to whether or not I believe Adam and Eve had Free Will in the Garden of Eden.

I had written a couple posts in my old blog about whether or not I thought God was justified in punishing Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit, but I had not fully considered whether or not I believed they had Free Will in order to choose whether or not to eat it.

I think it is an interesting question, and I could approach it from one of two perspectives. First, is from a Biblical, or Christian, perspective. In light of what the Bible teaches, and whether Free Will is an option in that case. Then, secondly, from a naturalistic perspective.

It’s important to keep in mind, though, that I don’t believe the account in Genesis is true, and I don’t believe it to be historical in any way. I am speaking, in this case, in entirely hypothetical terms.

The Biblical Perspective

I’ll start out with a Biblical perspective of Free Will and how it pertains to Adam and Eve, if for no other reason than because it is the easiest to deal with in terms of making a case for Free Will.

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that man has a soul, a spirit within which is supposed to be the manifestation of what the man really is. An expression of his desires, wants, needs, his personality, etc. An unseen, imperceptible something which makes up the essence of the person. It is through this medium of the soul which I believe Free Will would be possible. Adam and Eve would have been free to choose whether or not they ate the fruit.

The Naturalistic Perspective

Now on to the naturalistic perspective. The position that I hold. And because, as I said before, I don’t accept the account in Genesis as historically or metaphorically accurate, I will be speaking entirely hypothetically here.

Let’s consider these two characters, Adam and Eve. It’s difficult to reconcile a naturalistic perspective when speaking about this story, but setting all of those difficulties aside, let us start with the situation in the Garden of Eden. Assuming that somehow, naturalistically, God brought Adam and Eve into existence, let us assume that they are there in the Garden, and God gives them the order not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Because this is a naturalistic world, they don’t have souls. There is no supernatural force guiding their decision-making process. They are the result of natural processes, again, while taking great liberty to avoid many problems with this proposition. For the sake of argument, we’ll just assume it to be so.

From this point, from the perspective of Free Will, what can we say about this situation? I argue that from the moment that God brought things into existence, by whatever naturalistic means He used, He basically set in motion a chain of events. I say this because this naturalistic world is also void of miracles or supernatural energy. Taking this point into consideration, and from the arguments I made in my previous video about Free Will, Adam and Eve had no choice but to eat of the fruit. You’ll have to go back and watch that video if you haven’t seen it yet. It will make things much more clear to you.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as far as I can tell, a naturalistic world doesn’t provide a mechanism for Free Will. With the information available to me at this point in time, I don’t see any mechanism for Free Will other than through supernatural means. I’m really hoping I can be shown to be wrong in this point, but I have to side with where the evidence points, whether I like it or not.

Free Will And Determinism

A transcript of my YouTube video of the same name.

Introduction

So what is determinism? Put simply, determinism is the idea that every action is ultimately caused by previous actions – cause & effect. From what you decide to eat for dinner, to the position of every speck of dust in your house, to the temperature outside at this very second, these things were all determined by the physics of the Big Bang. An endless chain of cause and effect where everything happens because of the laws of nature.

With this in mind, it then becomes necessary to consider the idea of Free Will. The idea that we have the ability make choices independent of outside influences, and more specifically, regardless of those outside influences. Essentially, defying the cause and effect chain that lead up to you making the choice you made.

Analogies

Now, I personally have a naturalistic worldview, which basically means that I believe the world is essentially made up of mass and energy, or the physical Universe and nothing else. I don’t believe in a God, spirits or souls, or any type of supernatural energy. From this standpoint, it becomes very difficult to get away from a strictly deterministic view of the Universe.

To get an idea of what I mean, think of the game of Chess. There are a seemingly endless combination of possible games that could be played. The number of possible positions that could be played have been calculated by information theorist Claude Shannon at approximately 10⁴³, and by Dutch computer scientist Victor Allis at approximately 10⁵²! With a number that large, it is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.

Even though that number is so astronomically large, so beyond our comprehension, the fact remains that the number of possible Chess positions is set in stone. Taking the rules of the game into account, there is not a single position in Chess that can be played in addition to that set number. There isn’t a move imaginable or conceivable that can violate that number. Every game that will ever be played, or has been played, falls into that set of possible positions.

In this same way, the laws of our Universe only allow for certain phenomena, or for atoms to behave in very specific ways. When the Big Bang occurred and the fundamental forces were formed, the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces – these forces, their specific values or magnitudes and how they interact have determined the precise future of every action that will ever take place. When the first hydrogen atoms were formed, and the first stars came into being, it was all mathematically certain from the beginning.

Take another analogy. Let’s suppose that you have a ball in your hand and you’re going to drop it on the floor. Through the use of a hypothetical computer, you use it to know the exact weight of the ball, the position of every molecule of air around you, the wind speed, the elasticity of the ball and how it will bounce, the atmospheric pressure, etc. Basically, you know everything there is to know about the initial condition of the ball before you drop it from a specific height. From this perspective, you can see that when letting go of the ball, with sophisticated enough mathematics, we could calculate the precise position of the ball when it stops bouncing.

There’s also the coin flip analogy. When you flip a coin, because of the vast degree of uncertainty, there is, practically speaking, a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails. But, in reality, there isn’t a 50/50 chance. As soon as the coin leaves your thumb, what the coin lands on has already been determined. It is 100% certain that it will land on heads or tails because of the force exerted by your thumb, wind resistance, rate of spin versus height. And this is true for every coin flip that has ever been done, and every coin flip that will ever take place… or roll of dice for that matter. We simply don’t have mathematics or equipment sophisticated enough to analyze coin flips or rolls of dice.

Think of it this way. It is theoretically possible to design a machine which flips coins, and exerts the exact same degree of upward force on the coin. In this way, you can use this machine to flip a coin and get heads on every single throw based entirely on the laws of physics.

Free Will?

Now, with these physics analogies as our foundation, consider the difference between the physics of flipping a coin and the make-up of the human brain. Essentially, in both cases, there is really no difference other than complexity. Neurons, coins, cellular life, machines… they are all made of atoms and all have to behave by the same laws.

The problem with this arises when considering Free Will. In order to really make a case for Free Will, one would have to show that at some point atoms and molecules stop obeying natural laws. I say this because to really have “Free Will,” you would have to be able to make a decision that was completely independent of, and potentially in opposition to, previous influences on the mind. Basically, “Free Will” is the capacity to intentionally escape that cause & effect loop through our ability to make independent choices.

From a naturalistic point of view, I don’t see any escape from strict determinism. It seems to me that the only real way of escaping determinism is to posit some form of supernatural agent, such as a soul – something outside of our physical laws which can act independently. And the reason I say this is because there really is no point that one could point to where you could say that at “this specific point,” matter stops behaving according to natural law, and “from this specific point,” we can begin to see the mechanism upon which Free Will hinges.

Some people attempt use quantum mechanics to explain away this strict determinism, but I’m not sure that I accept that explanation. But, then again, I don’t know enough about it to really say anything meaningful about it.

So, my question for you is: from a naturalistic point of view, is it possible for human beings, or any species for that matter, to have a Free Will?

Hell Is Immoral [Punishment’s Purpose]

A transcript of my YouTube video with the same title. Video included for the non-readers.

Introduction

What is the purpose of punishment? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves when considering the idea of Hell. Eternal punishment, and the possibility that there is anything one could do that would be deserving of never-ending torture.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to ignore the fact that it is questionable, at best, as to whether the Bible actually speaks of a real place of eternal torment. What I’m going to be talking about is the modern-day, evangelical Christian version of Hell. The place where people go to suffer in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

The Purpose Of Punishment

So what is the purpose of punishment?

Punishment is a corrective mechanism. It’s meant to regulate behavior, whether that punishment is rendered by a society upon an individual, a parent disciplining their child, or a God upon an individual. The idea is that, following the punishment, the offending party will learn a lesson from the punishment and will modify their behavior in order to avoid further chastisement.

When considering punishment, we must also consider the method of that punishment as it relates to the degree of the offense. Does the punishment fit the crime? In order for punishment to be effective, the punishment must not be too harsh, as this will only breed anger and resentment in the individual being punished – leading only to a repeat of the behavior in question, and possibly more severe disobedience done spitefully in the face of the inappropriate corrective action taken against the individual. If the punishment is too weak, the punishment will have no effect. Simply put, the punishment must be reasonable with respect to the offense.

Punishment With Respect To God

Taking these arguments into consideration, let’s look at the idea of punishment within the framework of the Biblical God and whether or not Hell would be compatible with successful modification of behavior through punishment.

The Bible says that nothing man does is good enough for God – man is in a fallen state and there is nothing we can do of our own volition that could allow us to avoid Hell. In Romans 7:18, Paul says,

“For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing.”

In Genesis 8:21, God says,

“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

And, of course, there’s Romans 3:23.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

Because there is nothing man can do which can be considered “good” in God’s eyes, we are left to consider degrees of evil. Certainly all actions are not equally evil. You wouldn’t consider being a coward or not believing in God just as evil as murder, would you? These things certainly are not deserving of the same punishment.

Would you give a child the same punishment whether he stole from the local convenience store or simply ate a cookie before dinner? Certainly not. But, the message we get from the doctrine of Hell is that every wrong action, no matter how minor, is equal in God’s eyes, and is deserving of eternal punishment.

Punishment Or Revenge?

The famous verses in I Corinthians, chapter 13 are universally thought of as the Bible’s definition of love. And this is important. In I John 4:8, John says,

“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”

Now I want to direct you back to I Corinthians, chapter 13, specifically to verse 5. The verse says about love, it

“doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil.”

Love is not easily provoked.

Now, with this in mind, let us consider eternal punishment in terms of what we have previously discussed. We’ve said punishment is a corrective mechanism. That this punishment must fit the crime, as punishments which don’t fit the crime will not be effective in changing behavior.

But, most importantly, punishment is done for the good of the person who has committed the offense. It is to help them to modify their behavior in order to be a better person, or to better fit in with society – to behave in a more acceptable manner.

When actions taken against an individual are no longer fitting for the crime, and the severity of those actions far outweigh the offense, this is no longer punishment, but revenge. And revenge is not founded on seeking the highest good of the offending individual. Revenge is about being provoked and taking action based upon anger, the expression of hatred and a lust for seeing another person suffer because of how their actions make the revenge-seeker feel.

Back to I Corinthians 13, again. This time to verse 7. It says that love

“Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

This tells me that a God who is all about love could endure these sins of cowardice, fear, or even murder. But, clearly, if God feels every action that man takes is deserving of eternal punishment, this is certainly not punishment, especially when taking into account that man was created imperfect.

(Free will is not an excuse here because God, being all-knowing, understood beforehand that Adam and Eve were destined to fall.)

So God is taking revenge upon those whom He created, not punishing them in order that they may have an opportunity to improve and become better people, but simply to pacify his anger and lust for suffering. This is not love, and it does not seek the highest good of His creation.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, we have seen quite clearly that the idea of eternal punishment is not only immoral, but is totally out of character for a God who is claimed to be the very embodiment of love. It is not moral to conclude that every “wrong” action is equally evil and deserving of the same punishment.

Punishment should be done with the hope of seeing the highest good arise from the one being punished. It should not be done with the goal of making the one administering the punishment feel better. That is called revenge, and is done out of hatred, not out of love.

Eternal torment, by definition, never ends, and therefore cannot fit into a reasonable definition of punishment. The individual has no opportunity to correct their actions following the punishment. Hell is God’s place of eternal revenge.

Ray Comfort’s “Special Introduction” To Origin Of Species Undermines Intelligent Design Movement

This is the transcript of my most recent YouTube video on Ray Comfort’s most recent blunder… writing a special introduction for Darwin’s 150th anniversary edition of “On The Origin of Species,” publishing it and distributing it on college campuses around the country. I’ve also included the video in this post as well. Enjoy!

Feel free to watch the video if you’re not interested in reading…

Hello, everyone.

From the title of this video, you’re probably well aware of what I’m going to be talking about. But, what may not be so obvious is how happy I am that Ray Comfort decided to attach his creationist nonsense as introduction to Darwin’s work.

I’m sure Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron were just chomping at the bit for the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book to arrive. They knew that had to do something to celebrate. There had to be some way to use this event to promote some type of creationist propaganda.

Seeing that Darwin’s book is in the public domain, meaning there is no copyright attached to it, Comfort decided the best way to get the message out about how real and believable the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, he’d write a special introduction to Darwin’s book and release it on the 150th anniversary date.

Now, this is very important, because notice what Comfort has done with this publication. Recall back to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case where Judge John E. Jones III ruled against intelligent design being taught in the Dover science classrooms, because it was nothing more than a re-branding of creationism, or religion.

In his ruling, Judge Jones said,

“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

Now, I haven’t read the entire introduction yet, but what I did notice was what Comfort has done by publishing this “introduction.” The deciding factor in Judge Jones’ ruling was whether or not intelligent design was religious in nature. And here, in one fell swoop, Comfort has associated intelligent design not only with creationism and religion, but specifically with the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

On page 49 of his introduction, the topic heading is “Do It Today.” The first line of his introductory paragraph says,

“To receive the gift of eternal life, you must repent of your sins (turn from them), and put on the Lord Jesus Christ as you would put on a parachute—trusting in Him alone for your salvation.”

Documentation of the association of intelligent design, religious belief and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, the next time someone says intelligent design should be given equal time in the classroom, be so kind as to show them a copy of Comfort’s special introduction to Origin of Species. Intelligent design is, after all, nothing more than religion.

To conclude, I’d just like to say thank you to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for making it that much easier to keep intelligent design out of our school system. You guys really are as smart as I thought you were.

Have a nice day!

The End Of GodKillzYou [An Atheist Matures]

Cross-posted on In Case You’re Interested…

Introduction

For anyone who’s at all familiar with my writing, this blog or me personally, you’ll know that I’ve used the name GodKillzYou for pretty much all of my internet activity. Any account I’ve ever registered basically had that screen name associated with it.

So where did that name come from? Well, when I first de-converted from Christianity I was angry. I slowly began to realize that everything I believed was founded upon my own faulty reasoning, and that God was something I wanted to exist – not something that could be shown to exist. And because I’m a person who tends to take things to extremes, the result of my apostasy was my new screen name: GodKillzYou.

Good or bad, I went with it. I tended to adopt a point of view and portray an image that a name like GodKillzYou would put forth. I became the snarky, cynical, condescending, skeptical atheist that a name like GodKillzYou would fit.

Of course, I wasn’t like that all of the time in my writing. As my writing, as well as my personal journey into Atheism progressed, I found myself growing more and more understanding and sympathetic toward believers; not only of Christianity and other religions, but also of those who believe other things (ESP, Dowsing, Astrology, Psychic Abilities, etc.).

But my sympathy and understanding does not translate into acceptance of those claims. I simply understand more clearly how we arrive at those conclusions, and my attitude has come to reflect that. My intentions are much more driven by the desire to reach a common understanding with those whom I disagree with.

Re-Branding Myself

So, in this attempt to re-brand myself I’m hoping that my new screen name, TheSkepticalAtheist, will bear a closer resemblance to my worldview. “TheSkepticalAtheist” doesn’t carry with it that angst-ridden, spiteful, cynical tone that I’m looking to get away from.

I also realize that doing something like this is akin to changing a phone number. I will still leave my http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/ (In Case You’re Interested…) blog up. There is a lot of useful information there, aside from my writings on religion – tech stuff, iTunes fixes, etc. I’ll also still respond to comments on that blog, as I still get plenty.

And with that, I’m saying farewell to GodKillzYou and any stigma the goes along with it. I am branding myself TheSkepticalAtheist.

My new blog can be found here: http://theskepticalatheist.wordpress.com.