What about us ? A common objection to the universality of natural law that people raise is this :
"What's the point of making decisions if everything is determined in advance ? We should all be fatalists and just give up on everything !"
Of course, one can simply argue that not doing anything is still taking a decision. One cannot live at all without taking decisions, choosing action or inaction.
But this point is much more important, because it displays a fundamental misunderstanding which prevents us from understanding our place in reality. The only two alternatives that most people want to "believe in" are either :
1. We have souls and consciousness is not dependent on brains. Our soul is acausal, and God is acausal.
2. We must be fatalist and give up all hope.
In fact, this dichotomy is false in itself, even without the block universe concept. Both beliefs are one and the same : it is religion which is fatalistic, not naturalism. Eastern religions believe that karma regulates the universe, and Western religions believe that a super being regulates the universe. Either way, and however believers would protest against this,. fatalism is the logical consequence of both beliefs. If karma deals out reward and punishment according to an unknowable moral standard, then we should not fight against evil. If an all-good God justifies all events in the universe, then we should not fight against evil. In both cases, anything but fatalism is a rejection of one's belief.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Francois Tremblay's Atheism topic, please visit the Discussions page.