Free Will

So, I was on the Twitter again, as I am wont to do.  I've seen my fair share of bad arguments, but I've noticed the argument of free will a few times now.  I'm going to discard (mostly) some of the other things around this particular thing, and discuss only the things related specifically to this claim.

Let's put some perspective on this.

@acce245 @ShawnTheAtheist @Atheist_Eh @AtyHans @martinhanratty @reedymj It is:Adam had free-will. ALL have free-will pic.twitter.com/WkkJ58sFT8

— apostolic jack (@ax2n38) February 22, 2016

The basis of the claim is that the god of the bible created humans with innate free will.  Whether or not free will does indeed exist is a topic of debate which has been around for a long while.  However, I need to clarify, this is not the point of today's post.  Today we're only addressing whether or not the bible holds this point of view or not.

Now, to be clear, I'm not certain if the poster mentioned is a parody account or not, but I've heard this argument often enough.  Ergo, I shall proceed on the premise that it's his (or her) genuine opinion.

Let's pick apart the first premise.  This is almost too easy.

Now therefore fear the lord, and serve him in sincerity and truth: 

There's an interesting statement.  Basically, the first premise of this statement is that, even if you mortally fear the consequences of an action, you're still choosing to do something.  This doesn't fit the description of most definitions of free will, because it quickly becomes apparent it's not a choice.

One of my favorite analogies here is the idea of someone forcing you, at gunpoint, to dig your own grave.  Basically, you've got a shovel and you're restrained in some way.  Basically, the argument is that you somehow still have a choice, according to the tweet.  You can somehow choose to dig the grave or not.  In the same way, the picture is arguing that you have free will by forcing you to act only in accordance with the precepts of the religion.  It's certainly not free will in any real sense, because there is no choice.  With that in mind, let's move on.

and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the lord.

Again, the logic comes full circle. Obey or god will kill you, then send you to hell.  If this is actually the case, it's not free will in any sense of the word.  This is entirely apart from other parts of the bible where god literally turns hearts against him, has his own will which is inviolate, or decides well in advance of your death whether or not your name is in the book of heaven, or if he puts his name on your heart.  Here's a neat post summarizing some of the same arguments.  Again, I'm not debunking the entire bible on free will, only this rather specific argument from a very small portion.

and if it seem evil unto you to serve the lord, 

False dichotomy.  It doesn't have to seem evil for me not to want to do it.  It could simply be that I don't believe in your god.  This has nothing to do with his malevolence.  Although, it's mighty handy and telling how it presupposes people are going to presume that the lord is evil.  I wonder if there's any merit to that, a god who makes you fear him so you'll serve him.  Evil is a very interesting word, however, I don't believe in the supernatural, so carrying on...

choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

Again, that doesn't leave much room for choice.  Remember, I'm being coerced into it with mortal fear of hell.  Of course, if god is all-powerful, there definitely wouldn't be a choice, because an all-knowing god certainly would know how bad it is to rule with fear, and how it limits our ability to praise him freely.  I mean, if god wants to scare us into following him, that's not really any different than simply making us to follow him without the illusion of free will. It's functionally the same thing.  It's not so different from saying that the slaves somehow had a choice in their slavery.  The choice was to submit or fear punishment.  It's literally one of the justifications for slavery, once upon a time.

whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell:

This is interesting also, in that it actually gives credence to their being other gods.  That's literally a thing from the cultures of that time. 'Elohim' which means chosen god, literally frames it as a choice between gods, each being equally valid.  Yahweh was Elohim of Jacob, I think, and that's where one of the divides between Islam, Christianity, and Judeaism come in.  However, let's not tarry there.  Let's remember that, according to the old testament, in this context specifically, it literally is a 'choice' in the fact that the author of this original passage probably did believe that there were other gods.  However, he clearly didn't see it as an actual choice, since he thought his god was stronger, and therefore more able to be effective at punishment in the afterlife.  Ergo, he similarly had no choice, despite the wording to follow:

but as for me and my house, we will serve the lord.

Here we can also see that this is a fact supported by various commentaries.  Similarly, it mentions Yahweh at this point. Literally, in this frame of reference, there are multiple gods which people do indeed believe exist.  Either way, it's not an argument for free will, but for conformity under threat of damnation.

Marriage equality

Recently, on Twitter, I happened to come across this.

@Gay_Global_News @Letha_Hughes pic.twitter.com/87OWCedYPY

— STOP TPP Australia (@CitizenAssange) October 23, 2015

 So, it appears we have a few things to address here.  Warning, this might be a bit more intimate and touch a subject than perhaps others.

Marriage and Pedophilia

The first image there attempts to claim (unsuccessfully) that allowing same-sex couples to marry will cause homosexuals to rape children.  Let that sink in for a moment.  It's basically saying that, by allowing people to marry, those people will engage in sexual impropriety with minors.

This is a terrible argument, and to illustrate this, let's take it's polar corollary first.  Prohibition (or lack of, in this case both are the same argument) of marriage is therefore the answer to elimination of child rape.  Think for a moment now.  Does one really, honestly believe that the simple act of marriage is what causes people to become pedophiles?

If your answer is yes, then this illustrates the second point.  Straight people engaged in marriage should be at least as likely to be pedophiles, should they not?  If the simple act of obtaining a marriage license is the key factor here, then the logical conclusion is that we should simply stop all forms of marriage.  

Of course, we know that this is not the case.  Pedophilia is a mental disorder that can be caused by a variety of causes.  Marrying someone is not one of them.

Sodomy

The second image for some reason still has children in it.  However, having discussed it above, let's move on.  Basically, the argument here is that, somehow, sodomy should never be normalized.  I think, however, that the acts of two consenting adults with regards to sexual things should perhaps not be dictated by people outside of that relationship.

But let's even gloss over that point for at least one other that's related.  The implication here is that people only ever get married for reasons relating to sex.  This makes it an especially difficult argument.  Essentially, the person must fundamentally believe that the only reason for entering into marriage is to contractually obligate one person to fulfill the other's sexual desires.  Apparently, this means it has nothing to do with tax benefits, feelings of non-sexual love and attraction, romance, or any of the other reasons people typically claim to get married.

As this argument clearly illustrates, eliminating marriage in general (from the law, at least - treat it like a birthday, or other social function) is the fundamental purpose.  If sexual relations are the absolute only reason these sorts of people are entering into these marriage contracts, then we have no further need of providing tax incentives, property rights, and other legal benefits to people who engage in these relationships.  It's really hard to argue, as the picture does, that the children should really be of any concern regarding marriage, because they have little to do with the sex.  Custody laws could be enacted just as easily without the marriage clauses by recognizing parents legally in some other fashion.

This brings us to another point.

Real Parents

@Letha_Hughes @Gay_Global_News Children deserve real mothers and fathers, male cant be a female and a female cant be a male.

— STOP TPP Australia (@CitizenAssange) October 23, 2015

This tweet is from the same thread, so I'm including it here, because it definitely relates to the first two pictures.

We're going to deal with the first part, about children deserving real parents.  I may come back to the part about what constitutes sex and gender in another post, though lots of other people have already addressed it.

This relates directly to at least two factors.

Adoptions

Clearly, if a child deserves its real parents, we can't allow adoption to continue.  Obviously, I think this is an idiotic stance, and that's why I'm going to tear it a new sphincter here.  If we accept the idea that parents must be real and genuine, then simply put we must preclude anyone who doesn't have children from being parents.  In another way, this means that infertile people, single people, and anyone who is not the biological parent of a child should never have any say in whatever counts as parenting.

Let's take this a step further.  This also means that no one, regardless of whether or not they have children, should be allowed to adopt any children who aren't theirs.  Childrens' services goes right out the door, because this means that we should never have foster parents.  Similarly, this means that the government should never have control over anyone's children, because every child deserves whatever parents it was born to.

This line of thinking infuriates me, and I hope it at least makes you think about this argument.

Single Parents and Related

Basically, this point also drives home another point.  Sometimes, women die in childbirth.  Sometimes, one parent is unavailable due to any number of circumstances (military service, employment obligations, et cetera).  It is in the best interest of the child, certainly, to have competent caregivers.  However, if we're going to take this route, those children don't deserve any parents that aren't theirs.  I'm not going to linger on this point.  Suffice to say again, however, that this is another clear argument for elimination of marriage from the legal system.

Sexual Immorality

This one is going to be the most fun.

So here we have a poster arguing that marriage causes sexual immorality.  I think I can agree with this, in part.  I mean, married people do indeed cheat on one another with some frequency.  However, this clearly is not limited to homosexuals.  Similarly, depending on what you consider sexual immorality to be, the elimination of marriage could easily remedy at least part of it.  

Divorce is clearly the largest indicator that there is at least some problem that could be solved.  Without marriage, we need not worry about divorces, because divorce doesn't happen without it.  

Although, that's a terribly fallacious argument, because cheating happens in all sorts of relationships, not just marriages.  I think I just felt my brain snap a tiny little bit.  Do people honestly believe that no form of sexual immorality (whatever that means) happens outside of being married?  Or do they honestly believe marriage causes much higher instance of sexual immorality?  I think the implication is pretty clear.  Eliminate marriage and fix some problems.

True Marriage Equality

It is hereby my proposition that, to fix the ails of at least these arguments, we eliminate marriage as a legal contract.  Marriages within society I think are fine.  If two religious people want to have a civil ceremony, that's excellent!  Birthdays, bar mitzfah, baptisms, anniversaries, pinky promises, sharing of friendship lockets, matching tattoos and jewelry and clothing, and a number of other types of civil ceremony and social conventions already happen outside the jurisdiction of the law.  Placing marriage into exactly the same sort of category does, I think, make sense from this perspective.

Another reason to eliminate marriage is to create a truer equality.  As a single person, I can't just declare my roommate to be my tax benefit and file jointly, even if we're splitting rent and other bills.  As a single person with no kids, I get no benefits on taxes that other people are sending to schools that I also pay for.  I could continue this list, but I digress.

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for that position, but it is a logical argument of the positions preceding it.  I don't mind paying taxes so people who have children can send them to school, for example.

So, elimination of marriage would truly be the equalitarian way to deal with this.  However, the most equitable argument is to simply allow a pair of people to get married, regardless of gender.  It shouldn't matter that it's two men who want to sign that contract, or two women, or one of each.  Within the scope of law, it's perfectly logical.  I'd even go so far as to say that any people living together should be allowed similar benefits, like joint filing of taxes, regardless of marriage status.  

Sex is supposedly not the only reason people get married, right?

Nature of transitional species

Alright, we have a lovely post for you this evening.  Sit down, get comfy, and prepare to be amazed.

Let's put some context in here, shall we?

@chridgriebe @SecularScarlet @buzzet270 Fine, understand anything but don't teach transitional evolution to kids. Never been proven.

— Lt. King (@FreeAmerican100) October 22, 2015

So, let's address this in two parts.

PART ONE

Part one is pretty direct.  Evolution has tons of evidence (read:proof) available for anyone willing to spend the time to learn about it.  This is true of most subjects, actually.  One cannot simply claim something is unproven just because someone doesn't like it.  Since this is a factual inaccuracy (I won't call it a lie yet), we shall move on.  I think you will find that part two actually gives some fairly compelling evidence for transitional species.

PART B

Alright, let's get down to science.  Transitional species are a thing, and I'm going to provide two examples here.

Ring Species

Ring species are a group of animals (for our purposes) who exhibit a very interesting trait.  This trait is that there are a given set of species who can interbreed, but not fully.  Let's examine this a bit closer. 

The most common example, and the one we'll use here, is that of the various salamanders that inhabit the greater California area.  There are approximately seven distinct species.  Each lives in a given area, and typically not outside of it.  Species one and two, for example, have habitats which overlap.  Species two and three have the same, but species three is never found in species one's habitat.  Species three and four follow the same pattern, and so forth, for all seven species.

This gives us our first example of a ring species.  Species one and two can interbreed very easily, and do so quite frequently.  Species two and three can do the same.  Same with three and four, and each consecutive pair down the line.  However, we have an interesting observation.  Species one and seven never interact.  When scientists tried to mate them, it was impossible.  We can show a large trail of interbreeding between these very similar species of salamanders, but the salamanders at either end cannot breed together.  Species that are closer together can have success sometimes, and species that are directly in contact can breed nearly as successfully as a species with itself.  

This is one of the simplest ways to explain transitional species.  In another few thousand (perhaps million) years, these will all eventually be distinct species.  Most certainly, one or two of the 'links' in this chain will die off, or eventually two near species will become so distinct that they will be like far links in the chain.  This brings us to our second example, an example that's a bit further down that evolutionary line.

Equine Evolution

This one is a bit more interesting, from a short-term observation.  Horses and Donkeys present us their story here.  

Horses and Donkeys are approximately as unique from one another as perhaps neighboring (or perhaps a link or two separate) salamander species.  Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, which we typically call mules or hinnys, depending on if the male or female parent was a horse.  Occasionally, a female bred this way will be able to have offspring, but this is a rather rare occurrence.  

Horses and donkeys were at one time a much more similar species, and even farther back in time would have been literally the same species.  This is shown quite clearly by the fact that they can still mate.  This is almost as easy to produce as a either a horse or donkey, but the offspring are typical not able to increase progeny (have offspring).  In this way, we can see a species transitioning right now.  There was a time when their offspring would have been equally valid, and equally as likely to produce offspring.  This time is slowly passing, as it typically does for most species that slowly split. 

Humans and other primates shared this fate, although a considerably longer time ago.  Even the split between mammals and marsupials, for example, would have started in a fashion like this.  It's entirely possible that a viable strain of mules could arise naturally, but at this point it's very unlikely indeed.  Selection pressures against it are too great at this point.  Eventually, there will come a time when horses and donkeys will not be able to breed for mules.  This is still quite a way off, perhaps several tens of thousands of years, much as it's taken tens of thousands of years of domestication to create the two distinct species, for example.

CONCLUSION

That brings us to the fun part.  Remember, evolution is real, whether you like it or not.  Although, why wouldn't you like evolution?  Without it, you wouldn't have adorable cats, mules, or, well, any species.  

This isn't imgur, but enjoy these pictures, cat tax and all!