Free Will – The Grand Illusion

My friends and I spent today discussing free will and the functioning of the universe. One of my friends is a big proponent of the deterministic universe model and I and my other friend favored the idea of free will. It was quite the roller-coaster ride of a debate.

We came to the conclusion that free will can only exist if there is a nebulous metaphysical aspect to our beings that lets us overcome causation and the laws of the universe. If that is not the case there are two non-religious alternatives.

The first is the deterministic universe model. In this model everything that happens was determined at the creation of the universe. Every action can be predicted if all inputs in the equation are known. If you go out and kill a hooker tonight, it was written on the great cosmic map billions of years ago that you would do so.

There are some distasteful implications derived from this model. The first, as discussed, is the lack of free will. You have no choice in your actions, only the illusion of choice. It seems like your decisions are your own but they are really just the result of causation. If you have a choice to eat ice cream or cookies and you eat cookies, there was never a chance that you would have eaten ice cream instead.

Another implication is that you are stuck with your lot in life. If you are 43 living in your mom’s basement with no job, no friends, and no life, it was not your own doing that brought you to this situation. The universe determined this path for you at it’s creation. If the universal map says your life will continue to be this way, there’s nothing you can do about it. Sucks doesn’t it? On the other hand if everything goes your way and you have a happy family, lots of money, etc. then you are the product of a fortunate series of cause and effect. “Lucky” you. Too bad there is no luck or randomness in this universe.

The second option is the random universe model. This model hinges on the fact that we don’t understand the entire composition of the sub-atomic universe. In this model, actions are affected by random influence of unknown natural particles or forces. The idea here is that if you are torn between two decisions, your brain (cells, waves, receptors, etc) can be influenced by these unknown effects and sway your actions one way or the other. So, if you are deciding whether to eat ice cream or cookies and something fires in a string in the 10th dimension of a region of space that falls in your brain, you might choose to eat ice cream. If it doesn’t fire, or if something fires in the 9th dimension, you might choose to eat cookies.

This option still does not allow for free will. Your actions are a combination of causation and random chance. The future is uncertain in this model. It is not mapped out infinitely from creation like the deterministic model.

In this model you are still essentially stuck with one path through life, but it is determined on the fly, and the available options are greatly increased. In the deterministic model your path is set in stone from the start and that is the only option. The only factors involved are the initial inputs that result from the creation of the universe. How that creation happens determines your life. In the random model the options of life paths are made up of an infinite pool that vary based on the outcomes of decisions on the path.

For an example of the differences take this scenario. You come home and find your spouse cheating on you. In a deterministic universe you know you shouldn’t kill them but your course is set. You kill your spouse. In a random universe, you know you shouldn’t kill them and an unknown influence keeps you from doing so. In another place or time you might have killed them, but you lucked out this time.

Religious implications can be brought into either model. The first model is the classic “god’s plan” idea, where everything that happens does so because god wants it to. The second model can be explained by an interventionist god who sways our decisions in “mysterious ways”.

I would be upset and depressed by my lack of free will, but apparently I didn’t luck out or I wasn’t destined to be so. It’s a good thing there’s still the illusion of free will in both models, otherwise life would be like a ride at an amusement park. If you like it, great. If you’re throwing up or afraid of heights, sucks to be you.

Religion and Government

As I mentioned in my post about abortion, there are certain items that should have no place in politics and government. One of these items – to some extent – is religion. In the United States, tackling religion and government together is a tricky matter because of the separation of church and state. Non-theists will argue that this separation is not clear enough, and many theists will claim that there is too much separation.

I think we can all agree there is not complete separation. Our pledge of allegiance has the phrase “under god” in it. Nearly all presidents and other officials swear their oaths on a bible. Religious paraphernalia can be found in government facilities.

The religious practices and beliefs of politicians are normally heavily scrutinized (sadly normally to see if they are “religious enough”). I personally feel that a person’s religious beliefs – or lack thereof – should not play a significant role in their selection for government position. This stance comes with a significant caveat -  politicians must set aside their religious views when making policy decisions.

Theoretically, the purpose of an elected official is to enact policy that represents the wishes of their constituency. If they do not do so, theoretically they will not be re-elected. So, if the majority of a politician’s constituency supports funding for stem cell research, then they should act accordingly even if the policy is against their religious beliefs. It is what they were elected to do and if they do not like the idea they should not be in politics.

Sadly, this is almost never the case. In the case of stem cell research, despite a large majority of the population supporting it, George Bush decided he did not care what his constituency thought and struck down funding for it. Somewhere along the line politicians got the idea that they knew what was best for the country and their constituency’s views be damned. Not all conflicting policy points are religiously motivated, but many are and it is wrong.

What is most sad about this situation is that the populace has grown complacent and apathetic. They are content to let their elected officials make the decisions for them and often do not purge from office those who do not follow the wishes of their constituency. The populace must take back its control of government policy and stop grumbling when the politicians run amok without our oversight.

Religious beliefs and tenants can exist peacefully in government, but the will of the people must come first.

Back Off the Homeless!

I normally do not like to draw attention to bad posts, but this post pushed me over the edge on this topic. I realize this post is intentionally overblown and inflammatory, but I have seen several serious posts along this line recently. When did it become popular to publicly disparage and spout hatred against the homeless?

The big issue lately concerns homeless people having cell phones. Apparently some people view this as the most egregious offense a homeless person can commit. Let us evaluate some realities:

• Homeless people do not have a home! Therefore, they cannot have a land-line phone. If they have a job, it is often important for them to have a way to be reached and since they cannot have a land-line, a cell phone is the other alternative. If they are seeking a job, it is also critical for potential employers to be able to contact them. This can be done through shelters and other social service agencies, but often employers are wise to this and may be prejudiced not to select a homeless person for a position.

• Being homeless is dangerous! Violent crime rates are extremely high amongst the homeless population. In addition to this, the health of homeless people is generally poorer than normal. Thus it is important to be able to summon help in the case of a medical or other emergency. Having a cell phone also enables homeless people to stay in touch with social services, making their transition off of the streets easier.

• Some families will provide a cell phone to a homeless family member in order to be able to stay in contact with them.

As you can see there are very real, practical reasons for a homeless person to have a phone. I also find the derogatory and stereotypical attacks on homeless people in that post to be absolutely disgusting. This is one of the most vulnerable groups of the population, and includes a large (and growing) number of families and children, not just “hobos, winos and bums.” The homeless need and deserve our help, not disdain, stereotypes, and insults. Back off the homeless!

Abortion and Politics

There are some topics that I feel have no place in politics – topics that are so emotionally charged that they can singularly cause people to make poor decisions in relation to their best interests. These include abortion, gay rights, and to some extent religion (or lack thereof) in general, but I think that abortion is probably the most inflammatory.

Many people vote (or do not vote) for an individual solely because of their stance on abortion. They might agree with most or all of their other policy positions, but disregard all of that completely based on their emotional (or perhaps “religious”) reaction. I find this to be incredibly irrational, and have become quite frustrated in the past when trying to convey that irrationality to these individuals.

I personally feel that the government should have no role to play in abortion. I think it is a personal decision that should be made individually in each situation. This obviously makes me pro-choice. Of course, this is impossible because having no role is equated to the government condoning the act, which pro-life advocates view as homicide. Thus, the situation we find ourselves in.

Things would not be so bad if the topic of abortion was not so effective at making people single issue voters. There is an incredible tug-of-war going on in politics based around abortion. Each side struggles to maintain or appoint judges sympathetic to their ideologies in an effort to “win” the abortion battle. The pro-choice side has managed to maintain its edge in this battle thus far, but the struggle has no end in sight.

How different would politics be if everyone voted rationally based on candidates’ positions that will affect the country in countless ways on a daily basis, rather than focusing on a single limited issue? I think a fair number of politicians would probably not be in office and the country would likely be in better shape because they would be replaced with politicians elected for the entire breadth of their merits.

Politicians should not have to share their views on abortion, and I honestly feel that it would be best if they were not allowed to. The populace needs to understand that single issue voting is bad for the government and bad for the country. Please take the time to evaluate all of a candidate’s positions rationally and set aside your emotions.

Notes:

This post is specific to American readers. If you are foreign, how does this topic relate to your country? Do you witness the same phenomenon of single issue voting?

I realize this is the off season for election related topics, but I recently had an abortion discussion which brought this to the fore.

Is The End of Religion Realistic?

Many non-theists strive to use logic to convince theists that religion and belief in a god (or gods) is illogical and foolish. The ultimate goal of this is to reduce the numbers of the theist mass and eventually marginalize religion completely. While this may seem like a straightforward and simplistic agenda, I simply do not believe it will be possible.

Let us examine some of the main reasons people are religious. First and foremost is societal expectation. Because theists make up the vast majority of society it is expected that you will believe in some form of god – probably the Christian god in the United States. This is the area where I feel non-theists will have the most success. As more people openly admit to being non-theistic, it will become more acceptable to society. I think society is on the brink of this acceptance right now as non-theist numbers continue to inch up.

Some people are drawn to religion because of personal “enlightenment” experiences. On the precipice of some calamity, these people experience something which they interpret to be a religious awakening. I think this reason might also be influenced by society. If there was no idea of religion why would someone assume that any experience would be religious or related to a god? But the seed of the possibility of religious enlightenment is planted by society, and thus people are drawn into the fold by these experiences. Until the influence and size of religion is greatly diminished people will continue to believe based on these experiences.

Another reason people are religious is fear of death. Honestly, ceasing to exist completely and utterly is something of a frightening thought. It is much easier to believe that if you follow certain rules that you will continue to live on forever (or be reborn) in the afterlife. Essentially cowardice promotes religion. I do not think this fear will ever go away (unless science allows us to live forever), so it will always contribute to the numbers of the religious.

The need to understand and explain our existence is another religious motivation. For all of history people have wondered how everything around us came to be. How was the universe formed? Where did it come from? Can life as complex as that found on Earth really be the consequence of random energy and compounds coming together and then progressively mutating? We have detailed theories to answer some of these questions, but no clear answer as to how the universe came into existence. This is the last key question unexplained by science and until it is answered some people will choose to answer it with religion.

The final reason I would like to discuss is the need for a greater purpose in our lives. What is the meaning of life? This is an age old question, with no clear answer. It is not enough for most just to live and be happy – life must have meaning! On an animalistic level, the meaning of life is simply to ensure the survival and expansion of our species. For some the meaning of life is to leave the world a “better” place than when they found it. Of course, for many, the meaning of life is to live up to the commandments of their respective religion in order to be rewarded for doing so. I think it will be extremely difficult for non-theists to make headway in this area. The desire for life to have meaning is incredibly strong for many people, and many of those are not satisfied with worldly pursuits to serve as that meaning.

There are of course other reasons that people are religious, but I feel these are the key motivations. Based on my observations, non-theists do not have much leverage in swaying the religious masses to their logical platform. Societal acceptance of non-theism will draw some, and probably even a large number, but many theists will remain. The only other leverage will come from incredible scientific achievements – immortality or an understanding of the origins of the universe. Will these achievements ever come to pass? Perhaps.

Now, should science ever manage to prove that a god does not exist, then that will probably be game over. A small number of theists would likely remain after such a discovery, but they would be marginalized to the point of irrelevance. There would also probably be global upheaval, so maybe this discovery would not be such a good thing!

So what do you think? Is the end of religion realistic?