Against Determinism

I would like to start this post by saying it's definitely possible that some of you see me as self-righteous, prideful, or as a bit of a jerk from the posts you have read. If these are your feelings, I am sorry. However. The scriptures and such are probably just going to keep coming, simply because it's what I believe in. I keep thinking about a scripture in Matthew; Chapter 5 verses 14-16:

14 Ye are the ^alight of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a ^acandle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your ^alight so shine before men, that they may see your good ^bworks, and ^cglorify your Father which is in heaven.

I feel as though I have something to contribute in the following post, which, fortunately, to those of you who do not enjoy the scriptures, does not necessitate them, and they will not be included. The following is a logical argument. But I do not feel that I should keep what I have reasoned to myself:
We have learned, fairly recently, about the standpoint of Determinism (or, Hard Determinism) in my Philosophy class. Determinism, as I understand it, is the viewpoint that everything you do, think, and even everything you are is determined. From serial killers to priests, we are all determined in what we do and who we are. If a man were to be accused of a crime, a hard-and-fast hard determinist would not blame him for what he had done, because the determinist would reason that what he had done was inevitable. It had been determined. It wasn't his fault. I'd like to point out a few things I think are logically wrong with determinism as a philosophy. If any of you out there are determinists, please hear me out, and if you find anything fallacious in my thinking, please go ahead and leave your argument in the comment box.
Now, this is going to be an argument which, for the time being, works under the assumption that we are determined.

We are determined

If we are determined, as I see it, then we are determined either by something, or we are determined by nothing. Don't worry, if I am simplifying, further on in the argument, I will explain.

We are determined

|

|

By Something  ------------------      By Nothing 

Let's look at being determined by Something first: When I say being determined by Something, I mean that we are determined by a higher being. One being, or one group of beings with the same purpose. Now, if we are determined by a being, if that being is taking its time to determine what we do, then it has some interest in us, correct? So is it fair to say that it is either benevolent (it wants the best for us) or it is not benevolent (it hates us and wants us to fail)? Let us assume these two options for the time being.

We are determined

|

|

By Something  ------------------      By Nothing

|                                                  

|                                                  

Benevolent ----------------- Malicious                                                    

Now, here we reach the argument for the side of being determined by something. If we are determined by something which wants the best for us, would it not want us to know the truth? Wouldn't it want us to at least be sure in our own belief? If so, why then is determinism only one philosophy among many? If this being (or group of beings) controls what we think and how we act, it could have then introduced solely the philosophy of determinism. Why did it introduce anything else? It seems to me that it would not introduce anything but determinism if it wanted the best for us; if it wanted us to understand.

Now, what about a malicious higher being? If we are determined, and that being did not want us to progress or grow, or did not want the best for us, why then did it introduce determinism to our minds in the first place? It could've left that concept completely out of the picture, and not taken the risk that we would understand. This, to me, seems to blot out those two arguments.

Admittedly, there is a third option, which I had not yet considered before I began to blog: that the being simply sees us as its toys, and, since it can make us think what it wants to, does not need to worry about an uprising, and so does not need to worry that we have determinism in the mix. In the end, we would be nothing to this being, and, I assume, if it did not want us to, we would not be elevated to its plane of thought, and therefore would have no choice but to continue being determined by us. That seems, though, to fall under the column of malicious. So, I suppose, a malicious higher being is the only option. under being determined, "By Something." Lets leave that option open.

We are determined

|

|

By Something  ------------------      By Nothing

|                                                  

|                                                  

Benevolent ----------------- Malicious                                                    

Alright, now lets back up and look at being determined, "By Nothing." What I mean by this is that we are simply determined by the chemicals in our own body, and this is a result of the Big Bang Theory, and nothing else; in this situation, there is no God; no higher being that is guiding our thoughts and actions. Then I ask you this: throughout history, we have (under this theory) evolved into something greater not only physically, but mentally. We have built great things, made great steps in philosophy, and made other progressions as a human race. Here is my question: Why have we progressed if determined by nothing, or rather, by the chemicals in our brains? What non-being has a concept of progress? Why are we where we are now? This botches that section up for me too.

We are determined

|

|

By Something  ------------------      By Nothing

|                                                  

|                                                  

Benevolent ----------------- Malicious                                                    

Again, if I've left anything out or made any fallacies, point them out. I won't be offended. I would love for you to critique this if you feel so inclined. Please do. It still has quite a lot of refinement before it can be seriously considered, I think. Thanks for reading.

Please credit me with this argument, unless you can find someone who came up with it first.

A Vicious Cycle

Preface: Yesterday I was walking a pair of dogs, taking them around a loop. I came to a street which I suspected was a cul-de-sac (that what it looked like, anyway) and began going down it. Let's preface the next event by saying that I don't know much about dogs. I don't often walk dogs, I have cats, and so I really don't know very much about them. But that's not to say I don't like them. I'm totally cool with dogs. But what I'm trying to say here is that I really have no concept of what one might call, "Dog Etiquette." So there is indeed a distinct possibility that the following event was justified, and was absolutely my fault.
I, thinking that this street was a cul-de-sac, thought I might just cut through someone's lawn so I could get back to where I needed to be. It turns out it was not a cul-de-sac, but simply a street which turned abruptly right, which turn I was unaware of. I stopped on a lawn immediately right of the lawn of a man washing his car. It was then that one of the dogs I was walking decided to poop. I had a bag and everything, so I cleaned up the mess, but I was there for quite some time (relatively. a couple minutes), trying to get the dogs to move. As I started into this guy's back lawn, he stopped me saying something akin to, "Excuse me. This is my property. This is not your property. Please walk around. This is not your property. Please walk around." I was just about to ask if it was okay if I just walked through, but something told me that wouldn't be a good idea. So I simply said, "Okay," to which he responded with a repeated, "walk around," and to which I responded with a, "Yes sir."
Let's preface this moment a bit. I live in a neighborhood where the kids are completely fine with coming over into our lawn and playing in it. Granted, that frosts me just a little bit (which it really shouldn't, because) and granted, I do not own the lawn. So I have both no idea what it is like to own my own lawn, and already have a spot of contempt for people who play on a lawn which I simply live near and do not own. So I can understand why this guy didn't want me on his lawn. However, I have a father who, one Halloween night, saw kids traipsing on our lawn, immediately after something had been done for it (maybe it had been fertilized or something). He was not happy about this, and proceeded to yell at them to get off the lawn, which they did. I'm not sure that he was more concerned for their safety or for the preservation of the lawn. In any case, I think lawns are to be played on. If you have a perfectly good lawn, it's a waste of space to manicure it meticulously and allow no one to be or play on it. But that's not what I want to talk about.
On the way down the street after the encounter, I thought up a fair amount of biting retorts I could've shot back at the guy, because I was a little bit peeved. Not because I had though about all this in the few seconds it took me to leave, mind you, but just because I felt like he was treating me like an idiot. But I've contemplated it over the following 14 hours or so, and come to the conclusion that it could very well have been my fault, he could've been doing his best to be kind, and I just interpreted it the wrong way.
Now. That was the preface. Let me introduce you to what I foresee as the problem I have found in today's society, thinking about this experience.
The problem: How many of us, when we are angry, blow off steam with other anger? We catch road rage, we act like a jerk to someone we have no negative relationship with, or we just punch stuff. Like a wall. All of this behavior is, at its root, destructive. To respond in such a way is just going to make someone else angry. The person on the road you cut off or honked vehemently at is going to be angry at you. The person you were a jerk to is going to feel hurt and offended, and when someone asks about it, they may lash out. Whoever owns the wall you put a hole through will not be happy with you. You see the problem? What is this person going to do when you respond angrily and they or their possessions are in the way? They will likely respond angrily to your response, doing something similar to what you did, and affecting more people. When these responses come in the form of a one-on-one argument, I think the effect just compounds. You are angry already when someone retorts angrily to something you said, and you become more angry and respond in kind. Violence can ensue. This is what could have happened with the man whose lawn I was about to cross, if I had been simultaneously more quick-witted and more stupid. We could have gotten into a serious argument.
In any case, the fact is, when you are NOT having an argument (which is not a good thing anyway), and you pass your anger on to other people, they can pass their anger on to others, and they to others, and on and on.
UNLESS there is someone to stop the cycle. This is where you and I come in. I would suggest that when these things happen to you, and you are the subject of an angry outburst or commentary, that you calm down, breathe, and somehow let the anger flow away from you without distributing it to the closest host. If you are reading this and are not religious, please forgive me for the following comment; it seems to help me. If you are having real trouble, pray. Ask Heavenly Father if he can help you siphon the anger  off somehow. If you can break the chain in any way, you can stop a lot of people from getting angry. You can stop the lives of many around you from deteriorating for a day, or a week, or a month. I believe that to make this attempt in our own lives is worthwhile. And its a way you can potentially effect (or rather, NOT effect) many, many people. Thanks for reading.
*Clarification* My mother informed me that: BTW: the Halloween incident happened as we had just seeded our lawn and dad had put some tape around so the kids wouldn't walk up the newly seeded lawn. If that helps.
It does indeed help me to understand the situation more.

17 Miracles

Yesterday I went and saw T. C. Christensen’s film, “17 Miracles,” in Salt Lake City. It was an amazing film. It’s a representation of the Willie and Martin handcart companies from the perspective of one of its sub-captains, Levi Savage. The film begins with some of Savage’s life before the handcart trek. I think (don’t quote me on this) one of the reasons we have so much information about the company and their journey is that Savage kept detailed journals.

The film focuses on the trek itself, and the miracles that occurred before, during, and after the trek. All of the stories are truly astounding. You should watch the film to see how they’re portrayed (I think they did an amazing job with it). My favorite parts were nearest the conclusion of the film. Roughly paraphrased, Savage says, “There were many times that I would turn back to see who was pushing my cart, and see no one there. It was then that I most realized that angels were assisting us.” It’s something like that. Anyway, that was my favorite scene. You’ll see why when you watch the film.

If I have to be critical, I’ll say that I felt as though the acting might’ve been better (mainly on the part of the children, but I can’t blame them for that), but in the end, the reason I am most impressed with the film is the stories. It’s amazing, all of the miracles that the members of the Willie Martin handcart company were blessed with. You’ll have to go to the film to see all of them. I would definitely recommend it. The acting was definitely talented, and the portrayal was excellent, in my opinion. (For those of you who are living in Idaho (or rather, not in Utah) I don’t think it’s playing anywhere besides Utah at this time. But the link above will lead you to the website, where, under ‘theaters,’ you can find the theaters it is and will be playing in. I hope you enjoy it. I don't want to say much more, because I don't want to give it away. You can see a trailer also at the link provided.

The Search for God

I recently feel that I have done something wrong and am feeling immense guilt and pain for that wrongdoing. I am only recently, today, beginning the section in my Philosophy book entitled, “The Search For God.” One man submits that “The idea of God is either a fact, like sand, or a fantasy, like Santa…If it is a fantasy, a human invention, it is the greatest invention in all of human history.” Another portion of the section says, “Love and anger, guilt and ecstasy, humor and solemnity, optimism and cynicism, peace and doubt, hope and despair – religion seems capable of evoking a response corresponding to every peak and valley on the spectrum of human emotional life.” The way this statement put it, it seemed to imply that religion was the driving force behind these emotions; religion in and of itself; the belief in a higher being, but not necessarily the existence of one. This is hard for me to reconcile. I do not want to believe that a FALSE idea could evict such emotion in the thinker. If religion is an invention of man, then when man dies, that will probably be the end of it. There will come nothing afterwards. There will be no heaven, no afterlife, and no hell.

I think this is a comforting thought for some people, because it means no consequences for your actions. It means that when you die, you don’t go to everlasting joy or everlasting torment; you just…die. You no longer exist. The reason this seems potentially comforting to me is that we feel like we have done wrong by the laws of God. We feel like, if there is a God, and we have done what he didn’t want us to do, then we will be condemned. I submit that, if we knew what we were doing, if we knew the laws and knew we were violating them, the answer is yes. That is absolutely the truth. It seems interesting to me that we have this fear of that reality, and we hide behind it with doubt and denial. I would say that that alone was proof of the existence of the God in which I believe (as evidence of the light of Christ), but since all realities that each religion claims cannot exist simultaneously, and it is possible that there are subscribers to other religions who feel the same guilt that I do for actions that I do not deem unholy, I cannot put this forward as evidence at this time. Perhaps after thinking some more I will come up with something.

In any case, the reason I began this writing was that my personal belief is that religion alone could not inspire in us the feelings we have of guilt, or joy, or sorrow. It just doesn’t seem conceivable to me. Though I’m sure someone out there can come up with a logical explanation for the feelings I have. But I cannot believe them. I dunno. I felt like there was a purpose at the conclusion of this post, but I lost it. I’ll let you know when I’ve found it again.

"Personal Purity"

Everyone needs to read this. I IMPLORE you, I DON'T CARE if you've read it before. PLEASE read this. Just take 20 minutes out of your day and read it.
http://lds.org/new-era/2000/02/personal-purity?lang=eng&query=Personal+Purity

Eagle Court of Honor

No, no. It wasn't mine.
I only ever achieved Life Scout. It seems I didn't have the patience to do Personal Management and Family Life, something I hope I have now achieved, but which I do not think I have, and something for which I admire those scouts who have received their Eagle Scout award.
So, I attended the Court of Honor of a Priest from my previous quorum tonight, and I had a few thoughts I would like to share:
Guys. If you are slacking off about getting your Eagle Scout, you are about to read advice from someone who never got his. JUST DO IT. I don't care what your excuses are. I had some pretty bad ones. But believe me when I say that this is a GOOD THING. There is nothing inherently bad about the scouting program itself; there is nothing wrong to me with participating in the scouting program. In fact, it had major benefits in your everyday life, your usefulness, and your character. For instance, the scout motto is "Be Prepared." Is there anything wrong with that? No! That is something you can apply to every aspect of your life. As a member of the church, it is a good idea to be prepared with a testimony so that, if you meet someone who wants to know about the church, you can testify as to the truth of it. As an everyday citizen, it is good to be prepared with knowledge that scouting teaches you, like first aid, emergency preparedness, and lifesaving. There are GREAT THINGS about that. As a priesthood holder, it is imperative that you live your life so that if and when someone needs you to use your priesthood (needs a blessing, for instance) that you are ready, able, and willing to do so. The scouting program teaches good things.
The scouting program keeps you out of trouble. It keeps you doing useful things in your life. Believe me, I used to think that scouting was kind of useless. When was I ever going to apply anything I learned in scouting, honestly? But there are SO many things to apply! Not just principles, as previously mentioned, but practical knowledge for use everyday, in emergencies and such. And it's good for you to be exerting your energy toward something that will help you in your life rather than something that will end up harming you. And there are a lot of things out there that can do that.
This evening, during the Court of Honor, the sister of the progressing scout stood up and told something called, "The Legend of Eagle Mountain," though I would describe it more as a parable.
The story is essentially that a boy looked at the mountains one day, and saw boys climbing it. He followed them and began to climb himself, though he did not conceive that he could ever reach the top. At the beginning, he traveled with several boys, and the road was not steep. But as he progressed, the road became steep and more difficult, and boys began to break off, and stop climbing. But the boy continued to climb and climb. At times the road was easier and he walked more quickly, and at others the road was more difficult and he progressed more slowly. But the boy continued on, striving for his goal. And he reached the top. When he reached the summit in the evening, he looked to his left and saw a beautiful sunset. He looked to his right and saw a diamond studded sky of black velvet. He looked behind him and saw the trail he had traversed, and the boys who followed in his footsteps along the trail. And then he looked ahead, and saw new mountains. close and far. He saw one, and another, and another, and another. He looked forward and saw a whole slew of mountains. But he had climbed a mountain today. He could climb another the next day. This was a time for him to rest and celebrate that he had traversed this mountain. And that was what the Court of Honor was. A time for us to celebrate that this priest had attained and earned the title of Eagle. In any case, I felt that this was a great story, and applies to all of us. And it inspired me. And I feel like the Eagle Scout award as well as the Duty to God award are worthy pursuits (though my actions show otherwise). And to achieve them will give you great pride.
A more temporal benefit is that it will look amazing on a resume. It will give you great credit in helping to get you a job. People will look at that line, "I am an Eagle Scout," and consider all of those things you have promised to be, "Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent," and they will want to hire you. If you cannot consider the other things, at least consider that. It will help you to progress in your life, by finding you a job. People will place you in higher esteem when they know that you are an Eagle Scout.

The Unmerciful Servant

So I taught the lesson of the Unmerciful Servant today in Primary, albeit not well. I definitely could've prepared better. That's what comes of getting it done on a Saturday, I suppose.

In any case, when I was preparing, I found a few things that I thought were interesting:

First of all, the Primary manual contained some compelling questions. To preface, I'm taking a class right now in which the teacher has said that sometimes when we relate parables to ourselves we always think of ourselves as the Good Samaritan, or the Father who welcomes his prodigal son, or the Shepherd. But he feels that that is not the case. We like to think of ourselves as the one in the good, holy, or merciful position, when actually, we are the ones who are behaving the worst in the parable, or who need the most help. So, according to that standard, we ARE the unmerciful servant. But the manual asked also, "How are we sometimes like the unmerciful servant? like the king? How do you feel when you forgive others? when you do not forgive?"This means that we are sometimes in the position of the king. We are in the position to forgive others. So, while, in my opinion, we should be thinking of ourselves as the unmerciful servant, and watching ourselves for that behavior so we can keep it out, I would agree with the manual that we have the opportunity to forgive, and add that that is something we should be watching for in ourselves as well.

Second, three of the scriptures I was supposed to read to prepare provide a valuable insight:

Matthew 18:34-35

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. (italics added)

Ephesians 4:32

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. (italics added)

Doctrine and Covenants 64:8-10

8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.
9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (italics added)

I think these scriptures teach an interesting lesson, that is (at least, what I get from it) that we can forgive someone outwardly, and avoid forgiving them inwardly. We can go through all the motions, and exhibit behavior which seems to show that we have forgiven them, but still not forgive them in our hearts.

This poses an interesting question. To borrow a phrase from the vlogbrothers (with whose videos I would advise discretion) a "non-rhetorical question." This means that I am absolutely fine with you coming up with answers in the comments and we can discuss it our something, if you feel so inclined. In the lesson there were a few questions to clarify when you are being forgiving. For instance:

Are you forgiving when you say, “I forgive you, but I will not forget what you did”?

and

Are you forgiving when you stand up for someone who has been unkind to you?

So this is my question, in a similar format: Are you forgiving when you forgive a person for what they have done, but you still do not trust them? If you are not being forgiving in this situation, is it then appropriate for you not to be forgiving them just yet, because you feel they cannot be trusted with important things?

I feel as though I have an answer, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'd like to testify that if we are not forgiving (as the unmerciful servant was not) then the Lord will not be willing to forgive us for the things that we have done wrong. I would also like to testify that we need his forgiveness, even temporally we need it. It makes our lives so much greater when we can know we have been forgiven, through repentance, for something we had done wrong, and to be able to drop those burdens from our backs and carry on, doing our best not to pick them up again. I testify that forgiveness is sweet and amazing, and if you repent of the things which you have done wrong, with a sincere and broken heart and a contrite spirit; that you go through the repentance process correctly, doing as you are supposed to do, and being who you are supposed to be in your heart, that you can be forgiven. And it will taste sweet to you.

Nik Day

Yes, I learned something about my life from attending a Nik Day concert. And by the way, he did an awesome job. I'm thinking of buying some of his songs on Facebook. He played one called "One in a Million" that really resonated with me, but I don't think it's available yet. :P
In any case, that's the song I wanted to talk about. Or rather, that's one of the songs that is in the medley of songs I found interesting and enlightening.
As I was at the concert, I was sort of able to zone out and think just about the song and the lyrics and apply them to my own life (wish I could do that better with the scriptures, neh?) and I realized something I find interesting:
I feel as though my life is very much like a wavelength. But it's very standard, and it resides within some very stringent parameters. My life seems to be a series of ups and downs which, though not going too far down, never really go too far up, either. (Interjection: Let me preface this by saying that I have spoken with a doctor about some of my personal issues, and he was feeling that my high points and my low points were dangerously far apart, that is that, while the high points weren't exactly bad where they were, but that the low points dropped too far below where they ought to be (putting me in states of depression). This wasn't good, and he suggested medication). As I listened to Nik Day and his band play, I felt emotions about people I knew, and wondered... It seems to me that whenever I try to transmit an idea or an emotion, something is lost in the process. For instance, if I try to quote a movie, you don't really get the full movie experience because the only thing you're doing is listening to me talking, and you don't get the whole experience. Similarly, when I try to relate an idea I've been having, it makes so much more sense in my head than it does when it comes out of my mouth. So it only makes sense to me that a person trying to transmit an emotion through song will lose something in the process, or rather, that the audience will not feel the emotion as strongly as the artist does. Therefore, the (what felt like) massive amounts of emotion I was feeling must've been at least a bit less than what Nik Day was feeling when he wrote the song. And I wonder how it would be do feel emotions that strongly. I feel like my conditions have suppressed my emotions considerably to the point where I don't feel them the same as other people. In any case, I want to feel those things, but I do not want to experience the lows. But I feel as though to do so would be paradoxical. Just wanted to express that idea. Thanks for reading.
Oh, and I recommend the "One in a Million" song. Also, (ones that are on iTunes) "Monopoly," "Now That You're Gone," and, "How Could Life Get Any Better."