Saturday, September 20, 2008

Creationism & Free Will

Recently, while I was pondering on different ways that one can counter a Creationists' arguments, I came across one inherent contradiction in their beliefs. I never came across any argument from this perspective in any of the debates so far, so I would like to share it.

Consider the following two statements, which any general Creationist would believe:

1. There has to be a creator for every existing thing, so there must be a creator for the Universe as well.
2. Humans who commit sins go to hell.

Now, consider the following scenario:

A person X murders a person Y.
If one asks: why did X murder Y?
The answer will be: Obviously because a thought occurred in the mind of X to kill Y.

Here is the catch:

If one considers that the thought came out of the brain which was created by the God, then God should take the responsibility for the actions of X, so he/she should not be held responsible for his/her sins and it is not fair to send the person to Hell.

On the other hand, if we agree that the action was an act of "Free Will", then we are talking of a "thought" that was created on its own without any external interference. If one agrees to this logic, then one should also agree to the possibility that Universe was created on its own and it needed no outsider for its creation.

I would like to see how a Creationist would argue against it.

What do I mean by a Hard Core Individual?

To keep it simple, a Hard Core Individual is someone who believes in the following:

"Take pride on only those things that you have created or added value to and nothing else. Taking credit and pride for the things that the people of your Language/Caste/Religion/School/College/Company/Country/Friend/Father etc. is purely parasitic in nature".

As a corollary, a Hard Core Individual may take offense only if some one comments on his creations alone. He/She will not give a damn to the comments made by others on his Language/Caste/Religion/School/College/Company/Country/Friend/Father etc.

For example, I consider it highly unethical to take pride in the actions of Gandhi, though both of us belong to the same Country. Undoubtedly, Gandhi did a great deal for the upliftment of oppressed people of India. But, that is his greatness and I have no business to take any credit for it and boast about it. And yes, If I do something in the same magnitude only then I can take credit for it.

In the same lines, I don't give a damn to anyone who comments on my Language, lets say Hindi. Firstly because I haven't created that language. So, I should neither take credit for its goodness or blame for its faults. Secondly, any language is a common human heritage. Hindi is same as to some caucasion in England as it is to me. It is just that I happen to be born to a person who speaks it as a first language.

So, if someone is criticizing it, he is criticizing something that is equally his as well. But yes, if he criticizes any of my essays which I write in Hindi, then I may have to defend it.

Taking it further, for a Hard Core Individual, Chandra Gupta's Empire is no different from that of Alexander's. He will take pride of only that empire that he establishes (if any).

He/She will not take responsibility of any acts of crime perpetuated by the people of his/her Cast/Religion/Country, nor he takes the credit for the good deeds done by them at the same time.

Some critics say, this kind of Individualism kills the social solidarity and the patriotism of a citizen. But, if you read the definition thorougly once again you will know that it is not the case.

I truely believe that this kind of attitude will not only remove all the Caste/Religion...barriers but also decrease the chances for International conflict.

This attitude will prevent people from boasting about their Caste/Religion/Colleges/Companies etc thereby decreasing any chances for conflict.

A Hard Core Individual will judge any person purely based on his/her ACTIONS ALONE and not on any of the other Caste/Religion/Language/Country... baggage.

This will reduce the religious tensions because everyone will come to know that all the Religions are simply Common Human Heritage and it is not owned by anyone, not even by the Current Followers of that Religion. There is no logic what so ever that makes Prophet Mohammad closer to my friend Tariq than to me. Both of us are equally unrelated to him.

Obviously, it will discourge any petty Nationalism that is the main hindrance for International cooperation these days.

This will encourage everyone to take positive steps in making an impact on the society so that he can take pride on his actions, because he is no longer allowed to take pride on the achievements of the past leaders of his country or mythological figures.

Probably, she/he will be the most Unprejudiced and most Liberal person of the society.