Because History Proves It!

Today, two days before Easter Sunday, I read a post on a popular networking site that said that Jesus' crucifixion "firmly established an historical event". This friend went on to say......

"we should all bow our heads to reflect and praise the history of Jesus' passionate life and death"

Okay, well, in short, "history" cannot establish (or prove) outrageous claims, and in this case, outrageous, supernatural claims. We can learn from "history" what most likely happened(or most likely did not happen), but "history" doesn't establish or prove claims of the supernatural. For instance, we can learn from history that George Washington was our first President. And since Washington, himself, left autobiographical writings behind, we can take this bit of history and safely conclude that he actually existed and was our first President. But did he really throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River? History says he did. So?...does that settle it for you? It shouldn't. That is a fantastic claim, and you have every right to be skeptical. That little anecdote was probably started as an embellishment made by a supporter who sought to exaggerate Washington's physical strength to make people fear and/or look up to the President.

So, we can conclude from history that people exaggerated or embroidered the truth because they had an agenda.

Moving on....

The Empty Tomb

If there was an empty tomb at one point in history, the notion that a man came back from the dead(AKA, became a zombie) and walked(or floated) out of that tomb is at the very bottom of a list of what most likely happened. Xian: "Yes, but wait, this is the BIBLE we're talking about!" Me: "Yes? And?...so, what?"

Moreover, just because there was supposedly eyewitnesses to this event means practically nothing, since, well, dead eyewitnesses - in other words - eyewitnesses that we cannot question or interview, carry no weight. If a lawyer told the Judge, "Your Honor, the state would like to call an eyewitness to the stand, but he's dead, so now what?", that lawyer would get laughed out of the courtroom.

The outrageous claims in the bible can only be taken on "faith", and BTW, I have no problem with that. But we should all be skeptical of "history proves it" sphere of thought.

Free Will, or not

I was trying to figure out how I'd start this topic out, and then it occurred to me that in choosing the corresponding photo(just above) that I could have chosen from literally hundreds of photos that didn't have anything to do with feet, and yet, I chose the one with feet. 'Shocker. Well, sure, I was "free" to choose any photo, but was I "free" to choose against my most desired and sought end result? In retrospect, I don't think so. I'm not convinced that I could have picked something else over the perfectly shaped and beautifully painted toes, above. But even if I had thought to myself, "Nah, I like that foot photo the best, but I don't want people to think I'm a weirdo", that would still be in accordance with choosing the most desired end result...i.e...not wanting people to think "X" about me. So, in this instance, choosing the likable foot photo for my post on free will took precedence over giving a rat's patooty if people think "X" about me. 

What about if I wanted to fly to the grocery store instead of drive there? Can I just choose to sprout wings? No, of course not---I'm a human, after all; I'm not a bird. Or what if I wanted to become a tightrope walker or trapeze artist because, I don't know......maybe it would be a good way to come into contact with beautiful show-women. Could I wake up tomorrow and choose to forget about my fear of heights and just start prancing around on a high wire? I don't think so. 

So, is my "will" truly free? 

That is the question, and it demands an answer if we are to get to the bottom of the whole free will Vs determinism conundrum. The determinist believes that our past actions totally influence our future decisions. And really, how could they not? If a rape-victim finally gets the courage to leave her apartment 4 years after the fact, sure, she was free all along to leave, as in, she had the "freedom" and wherewithal to unlock her door, twist the handle, and walk outside. But she didn't do that. Is that not because her fear, directly based on her past, took precedence over leaving her house? Isn't it because feeling safe was her most desired end result? I believe so. 

I think we have naturalistic free will, but I believe that this free will has limitations. Think about it. We have competing thoughts pretty much from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep. In order to make truly free choices between competing thoughts, we'd need to be devoid of any and all recall of the past. Fact: That is impossible. Also, if we can contemplate possible future consequences for our choices, that, too, puts limits on freedom. Christianity and its "carrot and stick" (Heaven and Hell) dichotomy is a prime example. No one is choosing freely if they firmly believe they'll suffer dire consequences for making the wrong choice. E.g., the mugging-victim is perfectly free to not give the mugger his or her valuables. But since the mugger has a .44 magnum pressed against the victim's temple, that would be a bad choice, assuming the most desired end result is to go on living.