January 30, 2008
What I find interesting about atheists discussing free will is the fact that they don’t have free will anyway. They can’t. It’s impossible. Atheists don’t understand the concept of free will and they should recognize that fact, but again, they can’t because they don’t have free will.
But putting that little conundrum aside, I will begin by quoting Albert Einstein, Atheists always like quoting him, so Iwill start there with something from Einstein’s Out of My Later Years:
“If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgement on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?â€
Let’s start with the first line:
“If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; . . .â€
First of all omnipotent means: “having unlimited power or all powerful.†It does not mean or even imply that that power will be exercised. So the rest of the paragraph is pointless.
So, here Einstein got it wrong.
Don’t misunderstand me. Albert Einstein was brilliant and his work outstanding, but that doesn’t make his statement unassailable. His understanding of the word omnipotent was wrong.
There’s a gentleman by the name of Lawrence Louis who wrote something on free will for American Atheist, and he says what Einstein really meant was:
“This quote was made by Einstein in relation to theistic beliefs. Einstein wrote this in terms of the more commonly postulated arguments for God’s existence. Einstein used omnipotence not in the sense that God exercised direct control over our judgement and choices, but that all choices we make can draw their ultimate cause to the God. You have to read this statement in the context in which Einstein wrote it - that is from the concept of causation.â€
Here we are faced with the redefining of the word omnipotent. Mr. Louis wrote that Einstein meant “that all choices we make can draw their ultimate cause to the God.†Now, if that is really what Albert Einstein meant by “If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; . . ,†why didn’t he just say so?
Okay. Let’s look at it this way. Omnipotence makes people do stuff God’s way. This smacks more of coercion . . . which doesn’t negate free will.
I’m a purist when it comes to word use, and the word was used incorrectly. The poor usage shows, especially when an atheist comes along to explain what Albert really meant. It seems like Atheist Apologetics.
I’ll go back to the beginning. Atheists don’t believe in God. Everything is an accident. Human beings only behave in accordance with their environment and genetic make up. There is no free will.
So, why are atheists so caught up with it? That’s the question.
Posted by: at
12:49 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 7 kb.
So true, William! If man is driven by deterministic necessities he has no free will. Neither Atheist nor Theist, therefore, have a choice in the matter. So why fight religious belief? Believers really have no choice. Accidents have made Man the way he is; why not accept things as they are? It is a contradiction.
Great post!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 31, 2008 01:31 PM (QbcjU)
38 queries taking 0.0459 seconds, 105 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
