BELIEF IN FATE AIN’T BAD
Free choice is a lie. We do not have this faculty. To destroy belief in it we
have to refute the excuses for believing in it.
The first reason for belief in choice is that we feel free.
Dogs feel free and happy but they have no free will but are programmed by their
instincts and there is no reason to believe that we are any different. I as a
denier of free no longer feel that I have got free will.
The second reason, that we cannot reward or punish if there is no choice is not
a reason, for that would mean that something could be false just because you
want it to be false and don’t like the consequences of it being true! Rewards
are given principally because we like giving them and secondarily because they
encourage people to try and make good achievements in the future. When free will
as a reason is so far down in the scale we can drop it. As for punishment, even
the believers in choice believe that doing evil is insanity so they cannot
justify punishment anyway and the only reason they have it is out of fear and
fear is the parent of all human evil. If you believe in free will because you
want to punish then it is not punishment you believe in but revenge for you when
you need an excuse to punish the result is just revenge. When those who say they
believe in free will can pretend to reward and punish we can do the same but we
will reward and not punish.
We should let go of the past and the wrongs we have done and not let them affect
the present moment which is the first moment of the rest of our lives. That is
to say we should admit we made a mistake and fill our hearts with good feelings
and happiness and move on and make amends in good cheer. Happiness encourages
good works not fear and not unhappiness. When people do evil we have to
discipline them but we want them to accept it gratefully and rather than suffer
learn and grow and be happier so that they are content and don’t feel the need
to do evil things in the pursuit of happiness. The point when even criminals
should be happy it is a mistake to want to believe in free will to justify
punishing which is the only real point of believing in it.
The third reason that unfree will is rejected is that is supposedly makes the
word “should” obsolete. It seems that it is mad to tell an unfree being what
they should do for they are the pawns of fate. But a computer should print your
document when you tell it to so what difference does it make? You would still
tell a lunatic what he should do though he has lost free will through his
illness. The value in the word should is to tell us what ought to be and it
influences our reason and ultimately our actions.
The word should is a dangerous word. It accuses you of being bad if you do the
opposite of what you are told you should do. It seeks to pressure you and remove
your freedom. It produces fear then. Don’t even tell yourself what you should
do. Instead of the word should use the word could because could respects you and
acknowledges that you have goodness in you and encourages you. The concept of
should itself is as bad as the word so be aware of that as well. Free will is an
intrinsically violent idea and only suited to a morality that makes violence a
virtue.
By the way, the word “should” is what propagating belief in God is all about.
They say: “You should believe in God”, “God will be your companion so you should
accept him as such” and “You should believe in God for he guides you to do good
things and will punish you if you do not.” To reject the word should is to say
that nobody is to be told they should worship God which contradicts the concept
of God because God has “should” written all over him.
A should suggests that to promote God is to promote what at best is a benevolent
dictatorship. Benevolent or not - it is bad. The worship of God then
will always have a "but". In that sense, it is play-acting.
The word “should” always involves hatred because it says you are bad if you
don’t do what you should have done. Some bad deeds that people get up to do not
evoke feelings of hatred in us and others do. There is no doubt then that
condemning is an act of hatred because it is trying to hate.
The fourth reason that unfree will is rejected is that it supposedly discourages
the individual from changing for the better. The reasoning goes that if you just
do what you are programmed to do then let yourself do whatever you feel like
doing. But to let yourself is to act so when you are going to act anyway you are
better acting nice. Sensations of fear cause all evildoing and their origin lies
in short sightedness so even if you do have free will you will not improve
without the knowledge that is the key to conquering fear. So as long as you have
the knowledge it matters not if you have free will or unfree will. As for
believing in unfree will causing others to do wrong, that is not my concern for
what people will do people will do. My concern is my own will and how it
functions.
If people are not free they still change for the better so there is nothing to
worry about. Free or unfree they will not change unless we encourage them and
accept them. Deniers of free will change for the better too so the argument
comes from people who are not on this planet at all.
The fifth reason that unfree will is rejected is that if all we do is caused by
the past then how do we manage to improve our lives? If all our instincts and
actions are caused by the past you would expect each generation to stay at the
same level as the previous one for the effect is as good as the cause or would
you? The information got by the senses affects your thinking and makes you see
new things which is why you are able to change for your thoughts and therefore
beliefs change.
The sixth reason that unfree will is rejected is that if we don’t have free will
then our beliefs are not beliefs for they did not come from thinking about the
evidence but from the programming we got and we cannot be sure the programming
was right.
Consciousness is a separate faculty from the will whether the will is free or
not and all sense data is fed to the consciousness. Free will has nothing to do
with the issue of if what our senses tell us is right. The senses influence the
will. You could have free will and still be wrong about everything for your
senses might be programmed to lead it astray.
The easy way to refute the alleged need for belief in free will is in how we
tell children of four and five what they should do, give them rewards, and trust
their learning process and discipline them though they cannot have free will
yet. They don’t have sufficiently developed reason to exercise the faculty. This
is proof that the doctrine is just a burdensome accessory.
Like the rest of us, insane people think they are sane and that they are using
their free will but they are not for they are insane so there can be no possible
proof or evidence for free will. We could be programmed to mimic free will and
not be free beings. With that thought in mind, even if I do have free will it
should be dismissed as an illusion for it gives the weak a reason to violently
hate evil people and is more likely to lead to violent hate among those who can
avoid hating than the denial of free will would.
We do not need belief in free choice so we should dispense with it because it is
better and kinder and therefore more encouraging to flawed people who meet us,
to believe that a person who behaves badly is sick and needs love and support
rather than to believe he or she is evil and sinful and deserving of
condemnation and punishment. Belief in choice then always stems from some degree
of hate and snobbery and it encourages the drop in self-esteem that fuels
anti-social activity.
Does free will deny human equality? The doctrine says that we create evil out of
where there was no evil and nothing made us create it. Person A who is an
evildoer is using his personhood to freely create evil and cannot be as valuable
as person B who does only good. You can’t say that the person is doing evil but
that the person is valuable in themselves any more than you can say that an
apple that is rotten is valuable as an apple for such an apple is only fit for
being thrown out and has no value. To have value depends on what good you do or
are. But if we deny free will we can value all people equally and easily and
without hypocrisy for we blame their badness on bad luck.
Morality meaning doing right freely does not exist if free will is a fiction.
But right and wrong still exist. As long as we hold fast to the promotion of
self-love instead of other-love and God-love more people will do good not
because they have to or because they feel bad if they behave badly but because
they want to be good. Good is attractive!