Almost all religion relies on the concept of free will, and the ability to make choices. This supposedly then justifies any reward/punishment.
What is normally glossed over is how decisions are actually made by the brain.
We do know that decisions are made based on:
Circumstance
Upbringing
Genetics
Surrounding culture
Past experiences
and probably many more
If decisions were made purely on this basis, then we would be no different to a deterministic programmed robot, albeit one with the ability to learn (the ability to learn is a crucial when it comes to future decision making)
Most people don't view themselves as this, even though it actually seems to be the simplest explanation for human behaviour. They tend to say that there is something deep down that can override all of this and make a decision. This seems to purely down to a feeling of how they view their own consiousness, rather than anything else.
People have said that QM demonstrates that this is possible. The model then becomes a learning programmed robot, plus a random element. However this is no different to someone rolling a dice and making decisions based on the outcome.
So people posit something else deep down in the brain that alters the decision making process. Perhaps this is the closest definition to free will that I can find.
Now where does Free Will come into all of this. Having thought about it for a while, I don't think that it either has a good enough definition to tested, or even understood. Running a thought experiment, take 3 groups of people:
1. The first just make decisions based on genetics/previosu experiences etc (they are the learning robots)
2. The second just makes decisions based on the roll of a dice (QM analogy), along with previous experience etc.
3. The third has genuine free will (whatever that means) along with previous experience etc
Can you tell which one is which based on the decisions made? Can you even devise a methodology to determine which one is which?
If you cannot even achieve this, then you have no place telling people they have free will.
What is more damning is that in reality if you did this, you would find that the decision making would be most affected by culture, previous experience, upbringing and perhaps genetics.
From a scientific point of view this is fascinating, and still unanswered. This is where religion clumsily wades in. It says that we do definitely have free will (which it doesn't define) and that this is the most important part of decision making. It also says that this justifies eternal punishment/reward. One could take some of the learning robots and punish them based purely on their programming, but most would see this as immoral.
One may argue that if free will does not exist then the prison system is a waste of time. However, this is why the prison system is not based on religious ideas. Putting people in prison is about changing behaviour and protecting the rest of society. This works better with the learning robot than it does the genuine free will person or the dice led decison person.
The concept of Hell is nothing like prison. It is just about punishment. There is no chance of reform. It also flies in the face of the Jesus "turn the other cheek" philosophy.
The other point I would make is that religious people already realise that the decision making process is mostly based on upbringing and experience. This is why they isolate their children from any outside influences and try to indocrinate them.
What is normally glossed over is how decisions are actually made by the brain.
We do know that decisions are made based on:
Circumstance
Upbringing
Genetics
Surrounding culture
Past experiences
and probably many more
If decisions were made purely on this basis, then we would be no different to a deterministic programmed robot, albeit one with the ability to learn (the ability to learn is a crucial when it comes to future decision making)
Most people don't view themselves as this, even though it actually seems to be the simplest explanation for human behaviour. They tend to say that there is something deep down that can override all of this and make a decision. This seems to purely down to a feeling of how they view their own consiousness, rather than anything else.
People have said that QM demonstrates that this is possible. The model then becomes a learning programmed robot, plus a random element. However this is no different to someone rolling a dice and making decisions based on the outcome.
So people posit something else deep down in the brain that alters the decision making process. Perhaps this is the closest definition to free will that I can find.
Now where does Free Will come into all of this. Having thought about it for a while, I don't think that it either has a good enough definition to tested, or even understood. Running a thought experiment, take 3 groups of people:
1. The first just make decisions based on genetics/previosu experiences etc (they are the learning robots)
2. The second just makes decisions based on the roll of a dice (QM analogy), along with previous experience etc.
3. The third has genuine free will (whatever that means) along with previous experience etc
Can you tell which one is which based on the decisions made? Can you even devise a methodology to determine which one is which?
If you cannot even achieve this, then you have no place telling people they have free will.
What is more damning is that in reality if you did this, you would find that the decision making would be most affected by culture, previous experience, upbringing and perhaps genetics.
From a scientific point of view this is fascinating, and still unanswered. This is where religion clumsily wades in. It says that we do definitely have free will (which it doesn't define) and that this is the most important part of decision making. It also says that this justifies eternal punishment/reward. One could take some of the learning robots and punish them based purely on their programming, but most would see this as immoral.
One may argue that if free will does not exist then the prison system is a waste of time. However, this is why the prison system is not based on religious ideas. Putting people in prison is about changing behaviour and protecting the rest of society. This works better with the learning robot than it does the genuine free will person or the dice led decison person.
The concept of Hell is nothing like prison. It is just about punishment. There is no chance of reform. It also flies in the face of the Jesus "turn the other cheek" philosophy.
The other point I would make is that religious people already realise that the decision making process is mostly based on upbringing and experience. This is why they isolate their children from any outside influences and try to indocrinate them.
