On Free Will

Lately, I was remembering the Stoics from my humanities class. Their teachings said that "we have no control over much of what happens to us. We can only control how we react to them".

But lately I've been thinking, do we have control over anything at all? Meaning, do we have free will?

The Stoics' teachings already take care of things that happen to us without concern (which is a lot) but what about when we do things that we want? Don't we have control of that?

You could say that, but there is one problem: do we chose what we want?

What I'm trying to say is, did I chose to want to become a physicists? Or to want to eat that burger? Or to want to take the bus instead of my bike?

What is the source of our wants?

Our wants appear to simply be put on us by something (can be god, nature, chance, destiny, who knows) without any concern from us. However even if we have concern over them then you would have to ask what made us choose some wants instead of others (did we want to want those wants? Did we choose them randomly? Any option you pick has its problems).

Ok, but you can say no to your wants, right? Well saying no to your wants is a want in itself. When you say no to a want is simply because you want something else. Like saying no to your want to eat a burger because you want to be healthier. Or saying no to having an afraid because you want to go to heaven or because you love your wife.

So it appear that we have no control of the outside (physical world), but we also have no control of the inside (our mind). Thus, we have no free will at all.

About the necessity and appeal of religion and the great masses

I have been thinking about this for quite a while now: about why religion is so appealing to people.

So, I decided to read the Gospels to see what was it that attracted Christians. Well, I couldn't get far because there was one thing that really bothered me about it: heaven.

When Jesus is on the mount he says that the poor and good will get all the rewards and that the wicked wont. Ok, I get that, but there's one problem: in order for that to happen heaven has to exist. Only if heaven exist can the teachings of Jesus be good teachings, if it doesn't, then they are bad, specially since he says to give away anything that anyone asks of you (that guys asks you for you house and car? Give it to him. Someone sues you? Give it more).

Well, we know that Jesus doesn't prove that there is a Heaven, so why does people assume it?

There's actually a reason, which is a "perfect moral world". As you may know, we do not live in a perfectly moral world: good people tend to get bad things while bad people tend to have good things. However, by adding Heaven, Karma, resurrecting as a higher or lower species, etc, the world becomes a morally perfect world; now good people will have good things and bad people won't (if not in this world, then the next).

Now, that's the appeal part of the title, but what about necessity? Is religion necessary?

Well, practically, yes. But only for the great masses of the people. Remember, most people don't care about existentialism, physics, philosophy, etc. They only care about waking up, going to work, going to bar, have fun, go to sleep (or something similar). So they need a quick answer to pop out every now and then when they do ask "why am I here?" or "what is the source of goodness?" or "what is goodness?".

And that is fine with me. Remember, these people are the foundation of society, the people that don't question anything. If everyone went around questioning everything, we wouldn't have a society (think about, what if we all questioned what the government does? Or every single foundation of societies like morals?).

Ok, but what about China? China is pretty much all atheist. Well actually the state is atheist, a lot Chinese people follow Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk beliefs. However those religions have pretty weak definitions of what "god" is (Buddhism doesn't have one, Taoism has man-gods, and Chinese Folk changes depending on where you are in China) so we see them as atheists.

Now, there are quite an amount of atheists in China (that I know) however, in the last 20 years that amount has been going down as the the Party eases up on religion. Here's a News article about it.

But Pedro, there are still a lot of atheist in China! What about them? Well you have to remember that even though the Chinese Party has ease off on religion, they still don't like it. So they still teach and tell people to be atheist, and most people just take this for granted (remember? They are not suppose to question government).

I used to be an atheists, so I know how does it feel to be an atheist who became atheist.

I have no idea how does it feel to be an atheist who was indoctrinated by the government or parents or was simply never told about gods. So I don't know how all those atheist in China think, but I can assure you that most of them do not understand physics, philosophy and the stuff, so they must have some quick way of answering those question so they can go back to having fun.

Anyone knows? Maybe they have a mystic belief too?

Solutions to the Jesus Paradoxes

Yesterday I watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" (great movie, by the way), in it I saw so interesting possible solutions to some of Jesus' paradoxes: like he saying that he is god and not god and the whole "god changed his mind about the old law" problem. By the way, the movie is being play for free on Hulu, here's the link: The Last Temptation of Christ Was Jesus really god or not? In the movie, Jesus is very confused about what is it that god wants him to do. Jesus is shown as a weak and scare man who is afraid of everything, yet when he preaches he sounds like a great leader. What's up with that? Well Jesus himself says it when talking to Judas about the stoning of Mary Magdalene (which is very similar to what is said in the Gospels) he said "when I saw those people stoning Mary, I wanted to kill them. But I open my mouth and what come out? Love". This goes in relation to what happened at the beginning of the movie when he asks "what should I tell the people?" and someone (don't remember his name) says "just open your mouth". Now, what does this all mean? Jesus was not god, he was just a speaker. Every time Jesus preached, it was not Jesus talking, it was god; this means that every time Jesus said "I am god" it did not mean "I, Jesus of Nazareth, am god", it meant "I, god, speaking through this thing you call Jesus, am god". This means that Jesus never called himself god (he called himself the messiah, but not god), god called himself god.

On to another paradox. What's with the new law thing? Isn't god suppose to be all knowing and powerful? If so, he shouldn't be able to change his mind. In Jerusalem, when Jesus talks to the priests in the temple (after destroying the market) he says "I bring a new law". The priest says "so god changed his mind about the old law?" and Jesus responses "No, he just thinks our hearts are ready to hold more, that's all". I think what that means is that god is being practical. Yes he is all powerful and know, and knows what is the perfect way of things, but you can't apply a perfect idea to an imperfect being. This is why communism and other utopia ideas don't work: communism is a perfect system, but when applied to imperfect beings as ourselves it turns into what you have in North Korea, China and Cuba (which is not communism, no matter what the media thinks).

So the reason for the new law is that we have evolved a little and are ready for something new and better. Maybe in the future and even newer law will come. Maybe Islam was actually the last new law (like a lot of Christians thought when the Muslims rose up). Who knows.

Now, this is "A" solution, not "THE" solution. I am not saying that this is what happened, just saying that it solves some of the paradoxes of the new testament. This solution implies that Jesus was nothing but another prophet (like Islam says), an important prophet who needed to be sacrificed for something (not sure what), but a prophet nonetheless. This means that those sects of Christianity that worship Jesus more than god (Evangelical Christians and other protestants) are wrong.

Now remember, The Last Temptation of Christ is just a movie, it is not even based on the gospels, just on practical ideas combined with gospels ideas.

Fundamentals versus debate

I was watching the whole controversy that was going on in Notre Dame with Obama. While looking at YouTube videos about it, I found this video.

You don’t have to look at the whole video, just look at the first 3 people. The Third guy is the one that I’m going to concentrate on. This is what he said: “And while there may be a diversity of opinions and academic debate, that is something that is welcomed but not to the extent that replaces the foundation of whom we are”. I’m not going to be talking about abortion but about whether foundations are a good thing.

First off, this guy made a contradiction: when he says that debate is allow (meaning, the exchange of ideas in a logical matter are allow) yet we should not debate if it goes against our foundation. That pretty much means “yes, we can argue, but you will not change or affect my opinion in the subject”. If that is the case, then why debate? If no progress is made, the why try? Why argue with someone who would not listen? This thus brings the question of whether we should have foundations; they seem to not allow progress since people will fight for them even if they are wrong (if, lest say, abortion is proven to be ok, this guy will not change his view since debate is not a option if it goes against his foundation. Thus, he won’t progress).

The same goes for pride and for people who have combined their emotions with their beliefs. We see it all the time, conservatives defending ideas to the death just because of their “pride” and “love” to their “foundations” and “morality” (which could be right or wrong); liberals attacking an idea just because they are in love with the idea of being “different” and “new” (regardless whether it is good or not).

So what can I conclude of this, foundations and pride destroy progress since they do not allow debate. That guy’s “foundations” did not allow him to debate (even though he said that he welcomes debate) and since he does not allow debate, then he does not allow progress. So my advice to all is do not have pride.