The great philosopher and logician, Bertrand
Russell, once remarked that "religion is something
left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science
as our guidelines", and indeed, history supports
his words.
If we take Christianity alone, biblical geocentrism
was invalidated by scientific heliocentrism,
Young Earth Creationism and Noah's Ark were
laid waste to by geology, and creationism
was unconsciously annihilated by evolution,
and as a result, Christianity slowly but surely
faded, having to reinterpret its otherwise
unambiguous assertions in order to remain
compatible with scientific enlightenment.
But while Christianity (and indeed all religions),
have been able to reinterpret their scripture
in order to accommodate most discoveries,
they have had particular difficulty with evolution
by natural selection, because unlike heliocentrism,
which merely contradicts a few biblical statements
of fact, evolution contradicts many biblical
statements of fact, and it critically diminishes
its creation story.
Put shortly, without the literal story of
Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the
Fruit of Forbidden Knowledge, Original Sin
is seriously compromised, and as a result,
Jesus’ sacrifice make even less sense.
Now of course, Christians can (and indeed
have) reinterpreted their scripture to make
this square fit through the circle, but many
denominations (though by no means a majority)
simply won’t do this.
They’re of the opinion that if the very
explicit biblical statements of ‘fact’
about creation are just metaphors, then the
bible loses its integrity, because any biblical
statement of fact can be viewed as a metaphor…
and hence, they see evolution as incompatible
with their religion (and to be honest, so
do I).
And while I fervently disagree with them,
I must admit that I have more respect for
their position than I do for those who insist
that they’ve squared the circle.
But alas, overall, Christianity, like most
religions, has accepted evolution, and in
time, so too will the religions that currently
don’t (such as Islam).
But a discovery that mainstream religions
absolutely cannot accept, is the long suspected
and recently demonstrated fact that free will
is an illusion – that is, that ‘libertarian
free will’ doesn’t exist.
But before I explain exactly why this is the
case, it would be remiss of me not to first
demonstrate how exactly we know that free
will is an illusion.
However, to do so sufficiently, I would need
to clearly define terms, present evidence,
and expose misconceptions, which would all
amass to a considerable amount of time and
would detract from the point of this video.
And so, in light of this, what I’ve decided
to do is to put a link in the description
to a video of mine titled ‘Free Will – Debunked’,
which does just this… and so, if you currently
believe in free will, then I’d like to kindly
suggest that you either pause this video to
watch that one now, or that that you watch
it shortly after this one.
Anyhow, the reason that mainstream religions
simply cannot accept that free will is an
illusion is because they are entirely predicated
on the assertion that it’s not.
The Abrahamic concepts of ‘heaven’, ‘hell’,
and ‘sin’, for example, all necessitate
that humans have free will; as does the Hindu
concept of Moksha, and the Buddhist concept
of Naraka.
To quote Sam Harris, “Without free will,
sinners and criminals would be nothing more
than poorly calibrated clockwork, and any
conception of justice that emphasized punishing
them (rather than deterring, rehabilitating,
or merely containing them) would appear utterly
in-+con-gru--ous.
And those of us who work hard and follow the
rules would not ‘deserve’ our success
in any deep sense.”
Or in other words, without free will, no one
can ‘earn’ the reward of Moksha, or ‘deserve’
the punishment of hell, and hence, concepts
such as these, which are at the very core
of mainstream religions, can only be made
compatible with the absence of free will if,
and only if, they’re revised to the point
of no longer being recognisable…
There is simply no way to accept that free
will is an illusion and to simultaneously
maintain that one ‘deserves’ reward or
punishment.
This square can’t be circled.
Now just as a side note, and to be clear,
I am of course perfectly aware that some denominations
of some religions adhere to theological determinism,
and that therefore religion can indeed accommodate
the illusion of free will, but it’s precisely
because of this that these denominations are
so distinguishable from the mainstream.
And so yes, it’s possible for mainstream
religions to adapt to the absence of free
will, but to do so they would need to reshape
the very foundation of their core beliefs
– to the point that for all intent and purposes,
they’d have died.
Or to put this as clearly as possible, because
mainstream religion necessitates free will,
and because free will is an illusion, mainstream
religion is therefore dead… but it just
doesn’t know it yet.
Anyhow, to finish where we started, the truth
of the matter is that each and every time
that a religion has successfully reinterpreted
its scripture in order to accommodate a discovery,
it has done so as only a Pyrrhic Victory.
While it may have remained compatible with
scientific advancements, it has each and every
time lost integrity and stature… it has,
to quote Russell… faded…
As always, thank you kindly for the view,
and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patron and to those of you who have donated
to the channel via PayPal.
And on the note of Patreon, I just want to
say that it was a pleasure to speak with you
all the other night, and that I intend to
do so again very soon.
Cheers!
