Free Will and Predestination: What is what really?

First off, let's get the definition of free will. According to wordnetweb.princeton.edu, free will means “the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.” This is so ambiguous, in my terms, because all of us have some kind of constraints, one way or another, so let’s give my own definition of the term. Free will is, for me, “the power to make free choices within the constraints of biological inabilities (You can’t fly because you don’t have wings)”. Predestination is the exact opposite of that, that all we do is predetermined, like destiny or fate. Second, I will not resort to biblical references, since I think the bible is not a very good sort of source for this kind of information. There will be God mentioned, of course, but that is because most people in the world believes in one sort of god/gods, such as Allah, Shiva, Yahweh, Jehovah, and whatnot, but I will collectively call them, God. And let’s give this collective term a set of properties that has been in mainstream definition of all mainstay Gods: omniscience, omnipresence, benevolence, eternal, and omnipotence. These are the qualities that almost all Gods in history have.

Personally, I believe in free will in the sense of my definition. We are free to choose between two or more choices, even if there will be consequences whichever way you choose. Predestination, however says that everything you do is already written down, awaiting a grand conclusion, much like a movie or a play. But there are circumstances that give the illusion of predestination, and I will give an example later on. We will start by criticizing two famous arguments against free will.

From God’s omnipresence:

The following chiefly says: God know everything. If that is so, then he also knows the future. If that is so, then people do not have free will because they cannot change what god has determined as the future.

This is an argument made by theists to proclaim that old saying: “your will be done.” This is so weak because, if god knows the future, he will also know what he will decide to do in some future time. If he can change what he will do by then, it can be a challenge to his omniscience. If he cannot change that, it will be a challenge to his omnipotence. Either way, his power is challenged by his very nature. This is not a valid argument because of these terms.

From part to whole argument:

This one says that what is true for the part is true for the whole. So if man is made of cells, and cells do not have free will, then man does not have free will.

This is so ridiculous because we all know that there are some cases that what is true for the parts could be false for the whole. Think of jets, individual parts do not fly but the jet as a whole can.

There are many arguments that can be said to prove free will, but I will just make up my own. If these words are already said, please notify me, so I would know.

There are instances where we have a choice to do anything or anything else, without outside source. Let’s say compulsive shopping. You see an mp3 player, you like it, you have money, you buy it. You may not have money, but you save up enough and go buy it anyway. There are many cases of those instances happening in our lives, even if we admit it or not. This indicates free will, because you are not influenced in anyway by others or a higher power. There are also instances where the phrase “I don’t have a choice” enters. But that is so not true. There is always an extra choice: “don’t do anything at all.” This may lead to death, but if you so choose, it just proves that you chose it on your own free will.

The problem with predestination is all the arguments can be easily criticized. There is no strong argument supporting predestination, while free will is seen and done in so many ways. It is true that we have evolved with the genetic moral code of our ancestors with the great apes, but only we have the ability to destroy this genetic moral programming with our actions. If we evolved to adhere to our genetic moral code, then we would have no choice but obey our genetics. But we don’t. Even as I type this blog, a teenage mother here in the Philippines is throwing away her baby to avoid responsibility. There are people killing other people for no good reason, people killing other people because of religion. Free will exists, and in that free will, we affect each other and constrain the choices other people can take, and other people’s actions constrain the choices that we can take. But free will exists nonetheless because it is what has moves the great advancements in science, the great philosophers, theists, atheists, everybody.

Morality: Objective or subjective

The point of this blog is to discuss morality and is it subjective or objective. I shall be making this along from my own understanding of morality.

What is morality, for me it is avoiding actions that will directly or indirectly result in the pain, suffering, and humiliation of another person. I think that's a good definition of morality. It is straightforward, precise, and now you know what to think if you are thinking of morality. Most theists say that morality is objective, meaning its universal, applicable to all. They state that God is the source of morality, and without him, the world will be chaos. On the other hand, subjective morality is not applicable to all, not universal, it is only according to the perceiver. I want to examine these two sides to answer the question: Did Moral come from us or from God?

Many theists would say that God made morals for us to obey, and they are in the "holy book", free for all to read. The problem is, even without the bible, there are still problems in objective morality. One is, the Euthyphro dillema which states: is morally good actions commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God commanded it. There are problems concerning God in both propositions. In the first proposition, God is not required because even God adheres to the objective moral. In the second proposition, it is still wrong because the bible contains so much abuse, hurt, humiliation, and suffering. And most Christians take the bible literally. So slavery, incest, killing people of other religion, genocide and other hideous crimes will be the norm if we take the bible literally. Problem is, theists would then say "do not take the bible literally". Okay, which part of the bible and which part to take seriously? Even theists themselves will argue about this. The point is, this kind of behavior is subjective, meaning it's from their own perspective.

On the other hand, subjective morality is where moral are based according to the perceiver. Granted, there are similarities among cultures but that is because of inter-cultural relationships, turning subjective morality to be the norm. Where, in the Ten Commandments does it say that you must not use violence to force an opposing party to sell to you his property at a price in which the seller is losing? But through laws passed, this type of business has been minimized. And that is the work of subjective morality, not objective. You must understand that there is no such thing as objective morality because everything we do is based on our own subjective reasoning: "If I do this, will I cause pain, suffering or humiliation in any way?" This kind of morality is the one we have, given to us by the evolution of cultures and norms. Buddhists, whose teaching came from an Indian prince, has way better morality than Yahweh, Allah, and even Jesus Christ

This is our truth, this is our reality. We should embrace it whole and strive to make the best of our lives. Morality is an option we should adhere to, not because it is demanded by God, but it will pave the way for progress and in progress, our sense of truth, self, sense and justice broadens