The idea that there's no free will is an atheist invention. So is the speculation that the “I” does not exist. There is some macabre thrill that comes over an atheist to think that s/he is nothing more than a mass of chemical exchanges and firing neurons. I do believe that atheists would be at their happiest if they could somehow envision themselves as something less than human. An animal driven by animal instincts. Even though their days are filled with examples of free will decisions, atheists choose to believe otherwise.
“Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.”
“Don’t be like a horse who requires a bit to make it turn this way or that.”
“Don’t reject the council of your mother.”
“Don’t be wise in your own mind.”
“Don’t despise the chastening of the Lord.”
“Always do good to the poor.”
“Give no heed to the invitation of a prostitute.”
These and countless other verses in the Bible, both Old and Newer Testaments point to the free will of humans to choose to do right or to do wrong. Decisions like, “Don’t lay up treasures on earth but instead store up treasures in heaven,” point to our ability to choose between one course of action or another, to serve this master or that, to follow after good or after evil, God or self. “Don’t fear him who can kill the body but fear Him who can throw your soul into hell.”
Rather than being ruled by our instincts like brute beasts, Jesus tells us, “If any of you would like to follow Me, then you must deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow.” This type of recognition of desire and volition allows our Creator to promise “Peace on earth to all those who please God.” We please God when we choose to “Be sober and righteous, and refuse to sin.”
None of us can blame God or our neighbour or anyone or anything but our own choices when we do wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Plenty of Christian theologians mused on whether free will was a myth, not to mention other non-Christian thinkers and philosophers. The idea that there is no free will (nowadays called "determinism," in most circumstances) is not an atheist idea, if only because it existed before there was such a thing as atheism as we know it today. I'm also not sure determinism is a part of most atheists' ideologies, but I must confess I've never done a study of it or even bothered finding out (I'm certainly no determinist).
ReplyDeleteAlthough, from my understanding, even most determinists believe in some freedom. The Stoics, for example, saw the universe in what we might today think of as one long chemical reaction, and that one day this would all stop, we would go in reverse, and then whole thing would continue from the beginning again. To a Stoic, everything that happened was inevitably going to happen, because it has already happened, and it would happen again in the future, but they did have one thing they could control: how you felt about your circumstances.
Just to give you a practical example of how some non-literal determinism actually holds some logical water: if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, chances are you would not be writing about Christianity, but instead about Islam. There is a limit to what we can choose in some situations, and I see freedom as not being something bestowed on us by God, but something we as human beings must fight to defend. Part of proving there is freedom is proving that there are options, and I think we're pretty lucky that we here in the West can choose in most situations.
“Plenty of Christian theologians mused on whether free will was a myth, not to mention other non-Christian thinkers and philosophers.”
ReplyDeleteThis mostly had / has to do with the theory of election. That God chooses whom He will for salvation and that person will in fact be saved, be it today or twenty years from now.
------
“is not an atheist idea,”
Well, it certainly has to do with naturalism. The doctrine of determinism states that all events, including human choices and decisions, have natural causes. I don't know any atheists who aren't naturalists / materialists.
-----
“if only because it existed before there was such a thing as atheism as we know it today.”
Hmm, that’s interesting. How is believing 1,000,000 years ago that Creator God doesn’t exist different from believing it today?
-----
“I'm also not sure determinism is a part of most atheists' ideologies,”
I think you’re right. However, whether they realise it or not, atheists don't have a logical choice in the matter. Just like Hugo would like to call himself an atheist, but hold the door open for the possibility of the supernatural. Mmm nope. You can’t have both options. If you're a naturalist / atheist, then part of your belief system must logically include that the conscious (the "I") does not exist. It's an illusion.
-----
“Although, from my understanding, even most determinists believe in some freedom.”
Well, sure. As it suits their argument. Richard Dawkins is a classic example (Selfish Gene) of changing his theory mid-stream.
-----
“because it has already happened, and it would happen again in the future,”
Ecclesiastes 1:9
-----
"I see freedom as not being something bestowed on us by God, but something we as human beings must fight to defend.”
The tricky part for most people is distinguishing slavery from freedom eg. Addictions or any of the myriad ways that secular people sustain their equilibrium in throughout life - looks, intelligence, education, status, position, power, wealth or lack there of . . .
-----
“I think we're pretty lucky that we here in the West can choose in most situations.”
Oh my, are we ever. And if you look deeper you’ll see that it is only in those countries with traditionally and historically Christian foundations where people have those freedoms.
However, whether they realise it or not, atheists don't have a logical choice in the matter
ReplyDeleteThis claim makes no sense, given that you are the one advocating that "free will" is the only possible truth. It also seems strange that you know so much about what atheists must think, given that you are not an atheist.
Regarding Ecc. 1:9, that is regarding human actions. Ironically, that is proven wrong, given our modern technological age filled with doing novel things (no one experienced powered flight before the 20th century, for example). But in the context of the Stoic ideology, it's not that if I fall in love, it's not new because millions before me have fallen in love (which is what the verse is implying). The Stoic believes that if I fall in love with my wife, I have already fallen in love with her an infinite number of times in the past, and I (personally) will do so again an infinite number of times in the future.
And if you look deeper you’ll see that it is only in those countries with traditionally and historically Christian foundations where people have those freedoms.
That isn't true in either way of looking at it. Christian nations have practiced unthinkable intolerance, and many non-Christian nations have practiced tolerance. You can't slip that little lie past someone who studies history every day. The Pagan Romans, for example, were infinitely more tolerant of different views than centuries of Christian governments throughout the Middle Ages. Even the Muslim world was more tolerant during its Golden Age than Medieval Europe during its Dark Ages.
How is believing 1,000,000 years ago that Creator God doesn’t exist different from believing it today?
ReplyDeleteThat question is worthy of a whole post, which I am now starting. I see your point, and it's quite poignant, but I have a different view of things. But in some ways, you are correct, it's just that in another, significant way, it's missing the point of atheism.
[I need to rephrase your question because... well... yours is too narrow. I would say that people were not atheists and believed in plenty of gods 20,000 years ago, before there was any monotheistic deity... but the overall message of your question is still worth addressing.]
ReplyDelete“This claim makes no sense, given that you are the one advocating that "free will" is the only possible truth. It also seems strange that you know so much about what atheists must think, given that you are not an atheist.”
ReplyDeleteOf course it makes sense. And it has nothing to do with what atheists think or what I think about atheists. The fact is if we are, as naturalism purports, nothing but an evolved mass of chemical interactions, then the conscious IS an illusion. Atheists can pretend otherwise, and most do, but that doesn’t make it so. Very few atheists are willing to live the illogical yet natural conclusions of atheism. Peter Singer is one of the brave ones who attempts to live out the incoherent ends of atheism but most atheists would rather cling to the benefits of the Christianised society in which they live.
===
“And if you look deeper you’ll see that it is only in those countries with traditionally and historically Christian foundations where people have those freedoms. That isn't true in either way of looking at it.”
Have you ever heard the term, “The Free World,” and “Leaders of the Free World”? These are not just democracies. These are democracies because their Christian histories make anything but democracies impossible. The very foundation of Christianity is the freedom to choose. Try this. Go to Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, or China and try practising the freedoms that you and I celebrate. Now do the same with Finland or Canada or England. Of course there have been times of exception. But trying to prove a point by pointing to an exception is not very helpful. Atheism, on the other hand, and even Dawkins agrees with this, atheism, left to its own drift leads inexorably toward fascist totalitarianism.
Democracy was not invented by Christians.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a poor grasp of geopolitical history.
I don't think that I said "Invented." If I did I was wrong. I think I said that democracy is a natural fallout of Christianity, the natural outcome of Christian influence the emphasis of which is freedom to choose.
ReplyDeleteAs to a poor grasp of geopolitical history, you're probably correct - certainly in comparison to you. But I don't think I'm wrong on the influence that Christianity on people regarding freedom.