A bargain

Part 2, and any other posts, won't come until someone comments on any of my previous posts in a way that induces discussion :-P

Free Will-Part 1

It is my belief that the concept of free will makes no sense. This has nothing to do with science or theology, but the fact that I think "free will" is self-contradictory, in a sense.
What reason and/or cause is there for one to make whatever decision they make? If there is no reason/cause, then the decision is arbitrary and/or spontaneous, and not truly "willed" any more than a hiccup is "willed". If there is a reason/cause, then the decision is contingent on other factors, and not truly "free". Now at this point someone might say something along the lines of "well, there may have been a reason/cause, but it was ignored, or disregarded, or etc." But that just leads to a regress: what reason/cause was there then for the ignorance (or whatever) (once, again, if there was no reason/cause, then the ignorance was arbitrary and random)?
Let's illustrate this by considering a simple case: someone has to make a choice between two options, which we'll call "good" and "bad", however those terms are defined (they are essentially arbitrary designations in this argument). Let's consider the situation where someone makes a "good" choice. Assuming that the choice wasn't arbitrary or random, what was the reason/cause that that choice was made? The answer "because it was the good choice" makes no sense, because if that is the sole cause for making the choice, then everyone would make the "good" choice, which destroys the concept of free will, since every decision would have only one absolute outcome. Neither does the answer "because the person is good" make any sense, because it implies that the choices made by an individual are determined by the individual's nature. Is it impossible for someone of a "good" nature to make a "bad" decision? If so, then the person is constrained by their nature, and are not free. If not, then why would someone with a "good" nature make a "bad" choice, if not for some other reason/cause? And once again, if one was to argue that there is a reason/cause but it may or may not influence the decision, the question becomes: well, what was the reason/cause for whether or not the decision was influenced? And you have a infinite regress.
That is essentially my argument for why "free will" conceptually makes no sense. Practically, I also think even if free will exists, the opportunities one has to practice it are so few as to make it effectively impossible. Each decision one makes is dependent on a number of external factors: namely, what options are available. Among "options" I'm also including what is permitted by one's mindset, psychology, neurology, etc. These options are what they are because of numerous miniscule decisions made in the past, which were too tiny to be noticed (and as such are effectively meaningless as far as free will is concerned), but are amplified over time by the "butterfly effect", eventually determining what large-scale options we have available.
Now, someone might say "well, God gives us free will", but this really just makes the problem worse. First, it does not solve the problem of free will itself being self-contradictory. Secondly, it is usually assumed that God is omniscient. If we define omniscient to mean it knows EXACTLY what will happen at any point in the future, free will makes no sense. In order for us to have free will, we must have choice. In order to have choice, we must have a number, more than one, of practicable options. But if god is omniscient in the sense described above, there is only one practicable option. Notice this says nothing about whether or not God CONTROLS our actions: the mere fact that is knows our actions in advance violates free will. And in traditional theology, this is a major problem, since God judges those decisions and determines punishment and reward for them. I read something once where an apologist was arguing about how materialism must imply determinism, and they saw this a problem, yet I would argue that at least in materialism there is no entity determining ultimate reward or punishment for actions we cannot control.
Part 2 will be about the implications of the lack of free will, which I believe are much less dire than people seem to think. (Essentially, my arguments rest on the idea that we do not have to worry about people acting as if they have no free will, since the very statement "acting as if they have no free will" implies a willed decision to act a certain way.)

Speech for Church

This is a speech I had to write for a Youth Service at church (www.uua.org). It's a rehashing of earlier posts (I did it at the last minute, as is usually the case with me), but I think it's worth putting up:

I believe that the protection of individual rights is fundamentally important in human ethics. Without this protection, the most well-meaning moralities can quickly evolve into totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fascism, and so on. This is because morality is centered on the promotion of well-being, and it is not immediately obvious that freedom leads to well-being. Obviously it does when contrasted with a semi-lack of freedom, but what about with a total lack of freedom? After all, if our minds were controlled, we could very well be better off. So while a Utilitarian morality of “the greatest good (or happiness) of the greatest number of people” is, I believe, the best morality we have, it MUST include a clause protecting individual rights.
What then is the fundamental right? What makes it so? Obviously, presence in the Bill of Rights does NOT make something a fundamental right. The right to marriage, the right to bare arms, the right to raise one's children as one sees fit, etc., although they may or may not be rights, cannot be FUNDAMENTAL rights either, since they are dependant on other rights and circumstances.
I believe that there must be a fundamental right for each person to pursue their vision of truth and meaning, to advocate their vision of it, and to be given the greatest opportunity to do both. I believe that this right, a right of thought, is absolute, unlike rights of action.
I come tot his belief by the consideration of three premises:
1. It is uncertain if there is such a thing as truth and meaning, although I believe it is likely that there is.
2. If however there is, it is more important than anything else.
3. It is highly unlikely, in fact I believe impossible, for any person or group of people to know all there is to know about truth and meaning.
The first two premises lead me to a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in regards to truth and meaning: the importance of finding it if it does exist far outweigh the benfits (such as comfort) of restricting people in their search for it whether it exists or not.
There exists, however, the possibility that someone who believes they have found total truth and meaning to then insist that everyone else agree with them: religious authoritarianism and dogmatism is an example. So is racism, sexism, and any other form of prejudice. This is where the third premise comes in.
Both of these arguments are essentially saying the same thing: in restricting the pursuit of truth and meaning to serve what is believed to be "truth and meaning", humanity and individuals are prevented from finding what may be even greater truth and meaning. It does not matter how noble the ideas that are being protected are. A dogmatic belief that humans are basically good, or that every human’s life is important, or that genocide is bad, is still a dogmatic belief. It is possible, though perhaps inconceivable, that these ideas could be wrong, or at least incomplete.
It is pointless to have a right to pursue truth and meaning if we do not have access to ideas though. Therefore, as part of a right to pursue truth and meaning, we also must include the right to access to ideas and a right to education, giving us the opportunities to exercise our right. Children must also be educated to have as open a mind as possible, since beliefs formed during childhood are incredibly difficult to shake off, preventing us from the pursuit. And part of having the access to ideas is that all people have the right to advocate their vision of truth. And we must advocate them forcefully, though not through use of force. This is because one’s search for truth must also be responsible. To often people say “these are my beliefs, and I have a right to my beliefs, so leave me alone”. This is nothing more than dogma on a personal level, and can be just as damaging. For me, pursuing truth and meaning means one must constantly be challenging one's own beliefs, constantly submitting them to change and improvement on logical, empirical, and spiritual grounds. It also means not being afraid of having one's beliefs criticized and challenged by others, but instead considering others' arguments and changing one's beliefs appropriately.
With this right and these reponsibilites, we can move forward, and as a species, grow. If there is no truth, than we have lost little. If there is, though, we stand much to gain as the interaction of our many different ideas allows thought to evolve towards the archetype that is ultimate truth.