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.