1. Theme 4
AO2

2. 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

3. 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 The extent to which philosophical, scientific and/or psychological determinism illustrate that humanity has no free will Strengths and weaknesses of Hard and/or Soft Determinism Whether moral responsibility is an illusion The extent to which pre-destination influences our understanding of God

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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’

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

15. 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