Free Will

I do not believe in free will. I think about where free will should come from if it existed and always come to the conclusion that without a supernatural device like the soul there is no way free will would emerge out of a brain that is governed by the laws of physics.

Free will would require that we can control every aspect of our brain that makes up our consciousness. That would specifically require that we are able to control how the neurons and molecules in our brain behave which should, based on my understanding of physics, not be possible. Even if it were possible, there would have to be something that tells us, how exactly we must control those neurons in order to think freely which would in turn require some sort of consciousness itself.

In other words, if we had a free will, we would need control of our consciousness and in turn of the mechanisms underlying our brain. Furthermore, we would need to know how they have to be manipulated to remove the randomness of molecular motion and to generate our free thoughts which would require (free) thinking itself. Therefore, at some point we would have to introduce something which cannot be explained by physics resulting in something called a soul for example.

 

edit:

 This Wikipedia article nicely illustrates a neuroscientific argument against free will. There is obviously subconscious brain activity prior to the conscious decision to move one’s hand. That means the decision is made even before we think we decided freely to move our hand. Moreover, one can influence somebody’s decision making process by stimulating the brain and the test subject still reports that he has freely decided what to do.

 

Searching for God in the Brain

Article

A very interesting article on which I just have one comment. It concludes by stating that God cannot be proved or disproved by this research and he is right. However, if we are able to create such emotions on our own, it would show that it isn’t God who provokes these feelings.

The problem with Atheism

Sam Harris, a famous critic of religion wrote an essay about what he thinks are the problems when calling oneself an atheist. I think it is a great read and points out many interesting things worth reflecting about.

Why? ’cause he’s transcendent, stupid!

Theists often say that the universe and everything that developed in it could not have originated from nothing. In their opinion, there has to be a God that started things because everything has to have a cause and nothing can arise from nothing.

So I continue along this line of reasoning: What caused God, then? Surely, God has to be created, too? You have to apply the same rules here, don’t you?
You cannot argue that God simply was there forever, period. This argument could also be applied to the universe. It always was there, period. Or it arose from the Big Bang, period.

Too many people simply stop asking questions when it comes to God. Their logic does not apply to God, because he is supposed to be transcendent. Every question asked in reference to God can conveniently be discarded with his transcendence. Questioning God is therefore effectively canceled. They replace things that are illogical in their minds with things that are illogical but must not be questioned.
To me, theist religions are a sect like every other sect out there. Thoughts and questions are absurd by their standards or are made a sin.

The Bible

As I said in my previous post, I thought about pointing out a few flaws in the Bible that, in my opinion, deprive Judaism and Christianity of their very basis.
I have, however, found a page that tries to do exactly this on a scientific level. I mentioned Exit Mundi before but they have started a new page about the bible. It is still under construction but already explaines some very interesting issues.

Freedom to do anything?

Why are there so many murders and atrocities in this world when there is supposed to be a God, who is moreover generous and of good nature?
Religious persons often answer this question stating that God gives us the freedom to do anything we want, even cruel things. So we are apparently free to commit crimes or to act even against the rules and laws of the Bible itself.
This reasoning has a flaw, however. Since God actually punishes people for their crimes after their death, this “freedom” does not exist. When you point a gun to somebody’s head and tell him he is free to go anywhere he likes but you shoot him when he does, he is obviously NOT free.

But what if God did not punish people?
Then why would I have to follow the rules of the Bible, having nothing to fear? Rules and laws need an enforcer and if God did not play this role, rules would be pointless, since anybody could just bend and break them if he so desired, without a retribution. Murderers or rapists who are not caught by us humans could then avoid any kind of just judgment. How would that be fair?

To summarize:
If God indeed existed, there are several possibilities:
1.He punishes people who act against his will. Assuming the Bible really
reflects his ultimate will, those would be, among others, criminals,
sinners and even atheists. This would mean that humans are NOT free,
contrary to the sermons of his followers.
2. The Bible does NOT reflect God’s ultimate will. Maybe, he just
punishes murderers, rapists and other “really” bad persons? We would
still not be completely free, but we would be free on an acceptable
level. However, Christianity and Judaism would lose their raison
d’être. The Old and the New Testament would no longer be any kind of
justification since you could not discern the rules that reflect God’s
will and those that don’t. (In my opinion, the Bible cannot be the
fundament for anything, since it contains far too many flaws and
contradictions. Maybe I’ll dedicate a post to the flaws of the Bible
sometime later.)
3. He does not punish anyone, meaning there is no
divine judgment and no ultimate justice. Moreover, the problems of
point 2 still apply.

Bonus option:
4. God does not exist.
This is my favorite answer to almost everything, since it resolves so
many fundamental issues and questions. Furthermore, it does not have
flaws.

Nice post about “non-theism”

Deism, Theism, Non-Theism, USSR, nude knees-up.

Pope condemns sex and violence in video games

Golem.de is running an article about a new message the Pope has given concerning the production of violent video games and movies and those containing sex. He calls them “perverted” and condemns everyone making such games.

As a reader pointed out: Everyone’s definition of the word “perverted” is different and the one used by the Catholic church is pretty much outdated. Moreover, churches should not have such a great influence on state legislature or public opinion.

It’s quite funny because my last post from a few days ago pretty much condemned these church actions.

Update: English article

Churches should not always be interfering

A few weeks ago I participated in a discussion about religion (again). I took the view that God doesn’t exist, of course, and mentioned my antipathy towards religion.
One of the points raised was that I should let everybody have their own beliefs as long as they do not bother me with their opinions. I was criticized for allegedly being intolerant towards religions even though they should be everyone’s own business. I would accept this point if it really was everyone’s own business.

However, the current state of affairs is quite different in my opinion. There are ethics commissions (committees?) that want to ban everything that is not permitted by one religion or the other. Cloning, genetic engineering and abortion, for instance, are very controversial topics because of the religious implications they bring along. Those commissions should not meddle in those affairs. It is not their business, after all. If your religion does not allow cloning or abortion then have it your way and don’t clone or abort but let everyone else do whatever they want! Nobody forces you to do it yourself, so your religion is not corrupted! Currently, you try to force everyone to act according to your principles and on the other hand, you don’t want anyone to attack your religion and to question your motives? This is hypocritical to the extreme!
Moreover, state and church are supposed to be separate, at least in Germany. Nonetheless, there are still leftovers where religion interferes quite significantly with the state. Religious education or ethics is obligatory in school. I think this is completely superfluous. The word “God” also appears in our constitution were it should not longer be mentioned. Get it done already and completely separate state from church.

To conclude, religious persons should stay out of everybody else’s affairs if they want everybody else to stay out of theirs. Demanding tolerance without having some yourself is hypocritical. I do not force anybody to stop being religious yet you force everybody to obey your rules.

Church members

It’s Christmas, a Christian holiday. I personally would abolish Christmas but this is not the issue I want to write about today. The date to write this post may not be the best but honestly, I don’t care.

I want to express my thoughts about the members of Christian churches and above all the Catholic church here. The issue I don’t understand is why so many people do not resign from their religious group. Most of the members of the Catholic church, for example, do not share many of the dogmatic beliefs installed by the Catholic church. Many members do not believe that Mary was a virgin when giving birth to Jesus. The canon law states that a person who does not believe in a dogma ought to be excommunicated. When interpreted rigorously, the canon law would have most of the Christians excommunicated. So why do people continue to support the church? There are many issues where the personal beliefs differ from dogmas. Moreover, many do not agree with the issues of celibacy or the prohibited use of condoms. Still, most of the people do continue to give their money to the church.
Let’s compare this to a regular club or a political party. A member of a club would resign if the club’s alignment did not coincide with personal beliefs. If a political party stopped fighting for your personal opinion, you would, of course, stop supporting this party and giving your money for its cause.
Again, why is this not the case with churches? Even if you do believe in God, you don’t need to be in a church. Everybody can create his own religion and his own moral basis. I think you do not even need to be a church member if you want to attend Mass (if the priest knows that you are not a church member, you won’t get communion, however. But is it that important?) Religion is a personal thing that everybody should have for themselves. Nobody is forced to support a group that does things you do not agree with.
It seems as if people cling to their own religious group. Is it fear of hell, or something? What is wrong with resigning from church and creating a personal set of rules and beliefs to act after? I think I can rightly claim that this is what every atheist does. You create your own rules and do not support groups which only slightly accord with your beliefs.

By the way: I am officially still a member of the Catholic church. This is, however, just because I still live with my parents who would not be happy if I resigned from church. Some of my friends and me arranged to go to the competent office and resign from church together sometime in the future.