Informed Choice:
the forgotten prerequisite for free will.
Making a decision of eternal and final consequence requires informed choice, including all the evidence necessary, all the options possible, and a full understanding of the ramifications of this decision.
Choices are not choices unless they are INFORMED CHOICES.
The bedrock of democracy is informed consent. (Daniel Dennett)
decisions, which reflect their own culture, values and views. It is based on access to comprehensive, unbiased and evidence-based information, about the full range of options.” 19141 DfES_ES_.indd
For midwifery, see https://nurturingmidwifery.weebly.com/midwifery/category/informed-choice
For retirement insurance, see https://www.informedchoice.com/
For funeral planning, see https://www.informedchoice.org/
For patient-centered healthcare, see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16103473/
If we look at the dilemma of true free will that is said to have eternal consequences, we must ask ourselves a few very basic questions:
- Can we make a free choice without all of the evidence to review prior tomaking that choice? Are people damned to hell based on uninformed choices?
- Or do they go to hell based on their own informed consent of free will?
- Based on the assumption that god loves us, would he not want to make sure that all people have all the evidence they need to choose god? Or is this god laissez faire about who knows and who doesn’t, who believes and who doesn’t, who is provided with the truth and the evidence necessary to believe?
- Based on the assumption that god is omnipotent, more powerful than anything in the universe, is there anything that god is not able to do to give evidence to those that require higher levels of evidence than others? Why doesn’t he? Is he less powerful or less loving?
- Based on the assumption that god is omniscient (more intelligent than any other), would he not know what it is the people need as evidence in order to believe? And if he knows (omniscient), then, is he able (omnipotent), or does he care (omnibenevolent)? Maybe he just doesn’t love those enough that question and doubt things that don't make sense, those that have a higher standard for their belief, those that demand proof, those that use the full potential of their ability to think.
- Then there is the assumption that god is omnipresent, with every person at every moment, in every situation, for all time. He sees all, hears all, and understands all. Isn’t that an additional reason for him to give more evidence to those that need more and a smaller amount of evidence to those that need less so that he can assure that all people believe guaranteeing that Jesus’ death is not in vain for anyone?
- An omniscient god would know to do that, an omnipotent god would be able to do that, and an omnibenevolent god would “so love the world” that he would want to do that to make sure all understand enough to choose to believe.
- Or would this god be so mindless and lazy and sloppy that he would force mankind to make UNINFORMED CHOICES? Is this not nothing more than irresponsible? Is this not simply bad design? Is this not simply heartless? Would anyone of sound mind believe in such a god? A god who sends people to hell even though they were not given an informed choice?
We have learned how critical informed choice is as human beings. Can our learning exceed the gods? Are the gods remedial? Or simply neglectful?
Christianity claims to be a relationship based religion. The greatest commandment is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.” You can’t get more relationship based than that.
If anything is to be based on relationships, then the two must meet, directly, face to face. Without meeting a person we cannot know them or even know they exist. And without knowing the other exists, we cannot choose a relationship with the person or the god. So what if one of the two parties refuses to be seen or heard? What if one of the two have never been seen or heard throughout history? How can there be any relationship? Relationships must be two way and never one way. One way relationships are not relationships at all. So what needs to happen if there is going to be a relationship between god and a person.
- There must be face to face, tangible, unquestionable experience, a direct meeting of the other.
- In order for there to be a direct meeting, there must be tangible evidence that the other exists.
- Once there is irrefutable evidence that the other exists, then a choice must be made; to develop the relationship or not.
- Without evidence, no choice can be made nor should it be made.
- And now we are, again, back to the dilemma of INFORMED CHOICE and who is responsible to be responsible with the relationship.
- How can there be a relationship when the only attribute of the other is silence and invisibility?
- How can a person believe in god without any evidence that the god exists?
- If god is omnibenevolent, then god will sincerely want the relationship.
- If god is omnipotent, then he is capable of providing evidence no matter what to every person that ever lived.
- If god is omniscient, then god knows that evidence is needed for each person in different ways and god knows now to provide that evidence so that it is irrefutable and undeniable so that the person would want to do nothing but to believe and choose.
And yet, according to Christianity, we live in a world full of people that do not have the evidence they need in order to believe and choose. The consequences of this neglect is damnation where mankind is blamed for god not carrying out what is needed for all to believe; or at least choose not to believe.
So here is what we are left with:
- There is absolutely no evidence that god exists outside of being a story in your head.
- There is no evidence we can choose to be in a relationship with a god that does not exist..
- The only verifiable attributes of this so called god is that he is invisible and silent.
- This leaves us with the only incentive to choose god being heaven and hell without knowing the merits of such a choice.
- But we have been given no evidence that heaven or hell exists.
- If we were given sufficient evidence that god exists and wants a relationship with us, then the last thing that would be needed is incentive beyond the relationship itself.
- Heaven and hell as an incentive or reward or punishment is deeply insulting to the awe and wonder of the promised relationship with the creator of the universe. It is also deeply insulting to the intelligence of mankind created in god's image.
- But heaven and hell is provided as a form of coercion to choose what is supposedly best for us.
- Force and coercion are the exact opposite of choice and a loving relationship.
- The only motivation that creates lasting change in this life comes from an internal locus of control rather than a external locus of control like arm-twisting, pointing a gun to the head, or eternal torture and damnation in hell. In other works, fear never produces real change. The only thing that produces lasting change is love.
Actually, this does not leave me with one question. This leaves me with a myriad of questions.
What does this say about the humans that actually believe all of these contradictions?
And the question that is bigger yet,
Why was it necessary to develop such a twisted tale full of disconnects? What were they afraid of? Is there any need for these stories in your head today? If so, why? If not, why not?
An all-powerful God wouldn’t need to be brazen in order to give people better evidence than they now have for His existence. If God gave additional evidence in some proper way, then “more people would come into a saving relationship with Him” (109), and humans will benefit in many ways at little or no cost to anyone. I might not be able to specify exactly how God would do this, but an all-knowing God could figure out how to do it, and all-powerful God could do it, and an all-good God would do it. (p. 133-34)
(William Lane Craig, God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist)
God is Vindictive, not a God of Justice
Not only does God punish us but he also promises to punish our children, grand children, great grand children, and great grand children.
Deuteronomy 5:
8 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
God is not only jealous, but he is proud of it as if that is a good character attribute. THEN he promises to punish children that have not sinned and brags about that also. I would think that if someone, anyone, had these sort of thoughts and threatens to carry them out, it probably should not be advertised. Most humans know better. But not God! He publishes them as part of the 10 commandments with his words etched in stone and passed down through the ages in the holy, inspired, inerrant Word of God to let all of history know this about him.
So I guess this is one way to provide informed choice so that people know what kind of highly abusive relationship they are really getting into. But wouldn't you think that people that choose to follow such a character would be the ones that deserve to go to hell. God's justice is extremely backward. Or maybe it should be those people that did not inform all other people of these eternal consequences. Is there a greater sin than such neglect?
Since we can't blame those that did not know,
then who must be blamed?
Those that knew but did not say?
Or the god that designed this system
and didn't bother to make it work for all people.
It sounds to me like the people that are supposedly bound for hell are the last people that should go there. Rather than "blame" maybe we should focus on who is really responsible for both
~ such an unjust system that is nothing more than a trap or
~ making up stories of fear to coerce people into doing what they don't want to do and believing in what makes no sense to believe.
On another note: is there such a thing as free will???
The debate is ongoing and it blows my mind:
There's no Such Thing as Free Will https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/
No comments:
Post a Comment