Free Will - What a Joke !

by cookiemaster 36 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cookiemaster

  English is my second language and I probably didn't express myself correctly so some of you didn't get what I was trying to say. Yadda Yadda I wasn't refering to absolute free will. I was also not trying to get into a philosophical discussion on the nature of freedom. With a poor choice of words I was merely refering to normal life choices. Jokehova(God) , according to JW's and many other Judeo-Christian religions, tries to regulate almost every single aspect of life, from trivial things like the way you dress to who you marry and socialize with. This is pure dictatorship and cannot be compared to government laws which exist only to prevent you from hurting others and infringing on their freedoms, and indeed are not black and white when it comes to freedom. It's not all black with God either, as you are allowed some choices, but it's not near to anything of amazing freedom that the WT magazines portray.

  Pontoon, you got exactly what I was trying to say. Not the consequences of my own actions borther me, but the consequences imposed from the borg, God, elders and so on. The borg lays in front of its members two apparent choices, obedience or death. That's not something anyone can deny, and it is not free will. Funny how JW's use so often terms they don't even know the definition of, or give them new definitions.

  Outlway, LOL, you always crack me up.

  WT Wizard, I mostly agree with you.
• 

  adamah

  CO said- Are you a Sam Harris fan at all? He wrote a great short book on the subject.

  Not sure who you're asking there, but yeah, I read some of his stuff on free will (I don't necessarily agree with what he writes, since I'm coming at it from a slightly-different perspective: the physiological basis of decision-making and cognition, having studying the subject as a bio major in undergrad, with a concentration in biochem/pharmacology).

  That kinda goes to the point cookiemaster just made about how phychologists/psychiatrists/neuroscientists use the term 'free will' to mean something quite different than the philosopher, or the theologian (which is much easier to grasp, since theologians typically say God's Expressed Will trumps man's desire to use his 'free will'; therefore, to violate Divine Will is the operative definition of a 'sin', and God doesn't give humans His permission to 'sin').

  So with the God concept out of the way, scientists are focused on studying other factors, like how one's prior life exposure influences one's cognitive biases, thus inevitably limiting the range of available options that individuals won't even be able to recognize exist. Obviously this limits people's 'free will' (we cannot consciously choose options which we don't even know or allow ourselves to recognize that exist).
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Cookiemaster: We are either truly free to do whatever we please and live our lives accordingly or we are not free at all and God is a big dictator.

  Then don't make big philosophical sweeping black-and-white statements like the above then diminish those who give philosophical answers.
• 

  HayDay

  The term "free will" is just a misnomer for a happy and ignorant slave to a fear. The idea of an all powerful god depends on people believing in a collective force that rewards or punishes the group's values. Humans like some form of justication for their value systems, but the real idea behind god is that he IS amoral. Jehovah doesn't have a right or wrong type of value system -he just gets jealous and kills people based on absolute power. What benefit would a god have in subscribing to morals? Morals are a luxury for individuals living in a limited resorce based society. There is nothing intelligent or moral about the way Jehovah treats people, he just has the power to do so, and so he does. Bible narratives tell us again and again of the contradictions in godly morality (which many are blind to acknowledge, in fear of the group's judgement).

  Fear is rooted to mortality. We humans have a cognitive paradox in our thinking that can't imagine our own personal mortality, so we tend to believe in a comforting, self serving, and socially acceptable narrative that reinforces death denial and personal immortality. That's the real clincher. If Christianity didn't offer the immortality narrative (resurrection) there wouldn't be any reason to grasp any of the concepts or rules it offers or depends on. It really just comes down to not wanting to die, or imagine our own death. This belief in immortality spans all time periods of history and concepts. In effect all religions must have a "what's in it for me" (living on forever in some form) type deal. If that ideal can be refuted by reality and logic, eventually the belief will fail with the educated general populace
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Use of free will and choice language by Witnesses is classic Orwellian double speak.
• 

  cookiemaster

  Yadda, as I've said, I've chosen my words poorly as English is far from being my first language, so even though it might have seemed that I was trying to make a big philosophical statement, in reality as was trying to refer more to big life choices in general. Furthermore, I now realize that I was also very confused since in my native language, the term WT magazines use is more of what you would define as freedom to make a choice, not free will as defined in the English language. Actually, in my native language there isn't even a word to define free will. Anyway, apologies in case I've offended you.

  HayDay, I find myself in complete agreement with your views. I couldn't have put it better myself. I wonder what would happen if science would advance to the point where immortality is possible for humans. Anyway, congratulations ! I love how eloquently you've put it.

  Frazzled, that's exactly why I was bothered so much. The whole thing reeks of Orwelian speak but all jdubs seem to be blind to it. I doubt they even heard of a "worldy" author such as George Orwell.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  I still remember when my wife tried to justify her treatment of her disfellowshipped sister, who was disfellowshipped for having tow kids out a wedlock to a man who couldn't get a divorce in the Philippines because there is no divorce, on the grounds that 'it was her choice'. I did a complete double take and pointed out to her that she had been df'd for exactly the same thing but that because I had been able to get a divorce and had married her she had been reinstated. I said 'if it wasn't for me you would be in the same boat.' Just astounding the mental gymnastics she had done to get to he position she could condemn her own sister in that way. Such hypocrisy and lack of compassion! I was pretty outraged.