Theme 4 AO2

No Are we truly free? Yes Hard Determinism Libertarianism Religious arguments Religious arguments Soft determinism Philosophy Philosophy Pelagius Augustine Psychology Psychology Arminius Calvin Science Science Implications Implications

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as: 7. How convincing are religious views on free will. 8. The extent to which an individual has free choice. 9. The extent to which philosophical, scientific and/or psychological views on libertarianism inevitably lead people to accept libertarianism. 10. The extent to which free moral agents should follow a normative ethic. 11. The degree to which free will makes the use of prayer irrelevant. 12. The degree to which beliefs about free will can be reconciled with beliefs about predestination 1. A consideration of whether religious believers should accept predestination. 2.The extent to which God predestines humanity. 3. The extent to which philosophical, scientific and/or psychological determinism illustrate that humanity has no free will. 4. Strengths and weaknesses of Hard and/or Soft Determinism. 5. Whether moral responsibility is an illusion. 6. The extent to which pre-destination influences our understanding of God

Predestination Vs Free Will – 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 Free Will 2 Corinthians 9:7 says ‘Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord.’ Only belief in free choice can counter complacency! Reward/punishment only makes sense with choice! Choice and not predestination is a better fit with a loving God! Predestination and Free Will are compatible

Evaluating predestination and Free Will For pre destinination Point Against predestination a Credible Bible Theologians Historical acceptance Concepts of God

A consideration of whether religious believers should accept predestination. Why would religious believers accept predestination? If it was credible Religious texts support it Theological support e.g. Augustine and Calvin Historical acceptance e.g. Councils of Carthage and Dort (accepted TULIP) Monotheistic ideas about God 2. Why would religious believers reject predestination? If religious texts opposed it Theological support for Free Will e.g. Pelagius and Arminius Historical acceptance e.g. Methodist Church

The extent to which God predestines humanity. To a large extent To a lesser extent Religious texts (as previously) Theological arguments and historical support Religious texts – Job 14:5 omniscient God, Free Will John 8:36 ‘If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed’. Theological arguments and historical support. Augustine – humanity born with Free Will (soft determinism) Conclusion

Determinism (Soft and Hard)Vs Libertarianism – 3, 4 and 9 Determinism – strengths Philosophy - John Locke is right Scientific determinism is right DNA Psychological is right Pavlov Weaknesses of Libertarianism Philosophical – no evidence Scientific – not accepted by whole scientific community Psychological – Rogers – other ideas within psychological are supported with more evidence Libertarianism – strengths Quantum mechanics ‘A fundamental concept in quantum mechanics is hat of randomness, or indeterminancy. In general, the theory predicts only the probability of a certain result’ Bowie Weaknesses of Determinism The deterministic mechanical view of the world is wrong. No evidence for Locke’s theory

Strengths and weaknesses of Hard Determinism. Idea Strengths Weaknessess Philosophical Locke’s theory of universal causation, if this view is correct then we must be determined. Supported by William James Locke doesn’t successfully prove hard determinism, his theory challenges libertarianism but doesn’t show determinism is correct. Sartre said there is no God and humanity is condemned to freedom Scientific DNA shows all humans have fixed scientific formula. Dennett ‘genetic fixity’ Science does not illustrate humanity is predetermined. Dr Sirigu found free will in the parietal cortex of the brain Psychological Pavlov claimed all our actions are conditioned reactions to our environment Psychology does not show humanity is predetermined. Carl Rogers claimed children can be conditioned but through getting in touch with real feelings moral agents can have free will. The cumulative effect of all the arguments Problems with cumulative arguments – Flew’s leaky bucket analogy

Strengths and weaknesses of Soft Determinism Hobbes’ view is supported by Ayer’s empirical evidence of the use of language e.g. caused and forced Ayer was a logical positivist – not just opinion but supported by evidence (synthetic not meaningless) Easier for humans to accept as we feel free Gives us a moral right to punish people No real distinction between soft and hard determinism Both accept moral agents will is determined wholly by external factors Can’t be both free and determined William James ‘a quagmire of evasion’

Moral responsibility Vs no moral responsibility Moral responsibility is an illusion Moral agents are not free and can’t follow normative ethics Moral responsibility is not an illusion Free moral agents should follow normative ethics

Whether moral responsibility is an illusion. Moral responsibility is not an illusion. Hard determinism and predestination Augustine and James Spinoza Philosophical - John Locke – sleeping man in a room analogy (Spinoza) Psychological - Skinner Harris – what we think of as FW is just luck – so not moral responsibility Legal cases and MAOA Libertarianism Pelagius – God has given humanity FW so humans have moral responsibility Arminius – God does not force his will, however, he also claims the Holy Spirit acts as the moral agents moral guide Sartre – ‘condemned to freedom’ Irenaeaus – Epistemic distance Dennett – we have FW to choose from a limited number of choices Our society punishes law breakers so actions must be done freely

The degree to which free will makes the use of prayer irrelevant. Prayer is irrelevant Prayer is relevant

The extent to which pre-destination influences our understanding of God Large

The extent to which pre-destination influences our understanding of God Predestination does not completely influence our understanding of God Predestination completely influences our understanding of God Predestination leads to religious beliefs such as the absolute power and providence of God – omnipotent – Calvin and Augustine All human beliefs would have been predestined by God, including the belief in God Omnibenevolent -Augustine – God is merciful, because He should have predestined everyone to hell but saved some. God is omnibenevolent Miracles – Lewis – God could intervene to perform miracles to remind humans of his omnipotent nature. Free will illustrates God’s omnipotent nature Arminius – Holy Spirit in all humanity Can’t predestine and be omnibenevolent. Plantinga and the robots God can’t respond to prayers for miracles if we are predestined Believers have ideas about God that influence their ideas about predestination – God’s sovereignity