Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility Traditional threats to free will:

Fatalism (every event was meant). Predestination (every event is willed by God). Divine foreknowledge (every event is eternally known by God).

Determinism: Every event is caused by a sequence of antecedent events.

Does determinism make free will an illusion? Libertarianism: We

are free, determinism is false.

Hard determinism: “Free will” is an illusion, our behavior is determined by genes and environment.

Compatibilism (soft determinism): Our behavior is causally determined but we are responsible for what we do. Our capacity to restrain present impulse to avoid predictable harm does not depend on escaping causal determination.

Obstacles to Incompatibilism Libertarianism (incompatibilist indeterminism):

Introduces a mysterious sort of agency that transcends physical laws. Implies that there can be no science of human behavior. Dualism (the belief that the self is immaterial) is no longer a viable position (no explanatory power, inconsistent with evolutionary theory,….)

Hard determinism (incompatibilist determinism): By regarding belief in free will as illusory, hard determinism eliminates moral responsibility and makes deliberation futile. But, the ability to deliberate is an evolutionary advantage, not an illusion.

The Evolution of Agency The human brain is the

product of six million years of evolution. The complexity of our brains provides us with the unique capacity for language. Linguistic ability enables us to anticipate future events and to deliberate about how to realize or avoid possible outcomes.

A rational agent is a utility maximizer. A UM deliberates about alternative outcomes, assigns an expected utility to each, and then attempts to realize the outcome with the highest expected utility. A UMs actions are caused and free.

Compatibilist DeliberationFree action: An

uncompelled action that an agent chooses to perform as the result of a process of rational deliberation. Free choices are caused by a process of deliberation.

Here I stand, I can do no other.” Luther

Religious Epistemology Religious

Rationalism: The existence of God can be proven. Unbelief is irrational. Anselm, Aquinas, Paley.

Forget faith, brothers, I’ve got logic.

Belief when the evidence is ambiguous. Fideism:

Objective evidence for God’s existence is neither possible nor desirable; it must be accepted on faith. Kierkegaard.

Voluntarism: The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but religious belief is rational if our passions lead us to prefer the religious hypothesis. (James)

Ambiguity and religious belief Religious empiricism:

The existence of God cannot be demonstrated, but reports of religious experience provide evidence for the existence of an Ultimate Reality.

Naturalism: Naturalistic explanations (of the origin of the universe and human life, and of claims to religious experience) are superior to supernaturalistic explanations. Hence, religious belief is probably illusory.

The Five Ways of Aquinas First Way: change,

motion. P1. Everything moved

is moved by something outside itself.

P2. Infinite sequence of movers- impossible.

A first, unmoved mover must exist = God.

This argument is so moving!

2nd way of Thomas Whatever exists has a cause. Nothing can be the cause of itself. Causes can’t go back infinitely, for,

if there was no first cause, there could be no subsequent causes.

There must be a first uncaused cause of the causal series. = God.

Where true charity is found, God himself is there. Thomas Aquinas

3rd way: Many things are contingent.

If everything is contingent, then once there was nothing.

Something must be necessary =God

4th Way: Some things are sort of wise and not too pretty. Something is sort of wise by sharing in perfect wisdom. A supreme being exists. = God

Teleology (5th way)

Nature operates according to regular patterns that allow life to flourish. It is no accident that the goal of flourishing is everywhere attained. An unconscious thing attains its goal only when guided by intelligence.

An intelligent force guides the universe. = God.

Paley: Find a watch, infer a watchmaker.

The human eye is more complex than a Rolex.

It is highly probable that a divine eye designer exists.

Disteleology Natural selection

and genetic mutation explain the slow evolution of the eye.

The big bang hypothesis explains the origin of our universe. Are you sure the fossil

record will confirm this?

Is the universe described by theism the universe we inhabit?

Hume’s critique: The design argument

rests on a weak analogy. The universe is unlike any product designed by humans. Living things differ from artifacts in relevant ways (begotten not made; organic; etc.)

We have no past experience of the origins of a universe.

The design argument fails to show that the designer is all powerful, morally good, or one god rather than a divine committee.

Wouldn’t an all powerful creator display better craftsmanship?

J.S. Mill’s Natural Theology The empirical evidence suggests that our

universe was probably designed by a finite god who is benevolent but not clearly just. A god who allows evil, disease, ignorance, and suffering to attain some greater good is not omnipotent. If the creator is morally good that Being intended nature as a scheme to be amended, not imitated, by man. We must assist god in ameliorating the human condition.

The Problem of Evil God is all powerful. God is perfectly good. Evil exists. [Inconsistent

statements] If God is all powerful, he could

eliminate evil and suffering. If God is perfectly good he would wish to eliminate evil and suffering.

Theodicies Deny

omnipotence. Kushner When Bad Things Happen to Good People.

Deny the reality of evil: Christian Science.

Cosmic harmony.

Free will requires evil (natural evil too? how much is required?)

Soul making: A pilgrim’s long journey towards moral perfection

If evil is just an illusion then the illusion that evil exists is an evil

Objections Denying

omnipotence solves the logical problem but leaves the question of God’s apparent absence unresolved.

Claiming that evil is illusion creates a new evil, viz., the widespread delusion that evil exists.

The extent of evil and suffering leaves one wondering, does the harmonious end justify the means?

Free will helps with moral evil but doesn’t address natural evils.

How much suffering is required to shape a soul?

Pascal’s Wager

Existential

Eternal Bliss!

Outcomes

Eternal Hell!!!

Wasted Sundays.Had less fun.

Lived without illusion.

Belief OptionsBelieve Disbelieve

PossibleRealities

God is

No God

The Cosmic Casino God is, or he is not. But to which side

shall we incline? Reason cannot decide it at all. There is an infinite chaos that separates us. A game is being played, at the extremity of this infinite distance, in which heads or tails must come up…. Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in taking heads that God exists…. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, That He is, without hesitation. (Blaise Pascal)

The Will To Believe I. Our epistemic situation-- theoretic

ambiguity (evidence for and against God’s existence is inconclusive).

II. Our existential situation: A. Importance- “it matters greatly to

us.” A momentous hypothesis B. Inevitability of choosing; forced

hypothesis.

William James concludes:

When we are forced to decide on a momentous issue with inconclusive evidence, it is rational to follow our instincts and desires, to embrace the religious hypothesis.

John Hick wonders: Is the will to believe a license for wishful thinking?

Can the argument support a right to believe if religious experience confirms that an Ultimate Reality exists?

Midterm Review Pt I. Matching. Match the

philosopher with his quote: Thales, Democritus, Parmenides, Heraclitus (wk 1),Socrates (wk 2), Aquinas, (wk 3) Hume, Mill, Pascal, James (wk 4)

Part II. Short answer. 1.Objection to piety

definition (Euthyphro)(2) 2. The Socratic Mission (2) 3.James- skeptical balance

(4) 4.Religious ambiguity(3,4)

Pt. III. Essay (a) teleological (design) argument or (b) problem of evil.

Part IV. Multiple choice 1. Definitions- libertarianism,

hard determinism, compatibilism. 2. Problem of evil as objection to argument for God’s existence. 3. Why Plato opposes prayer/sacrifice piety. 4. Definition of “rational agent.” 5. Why Mill thinks God is finite. 6. Heraclitus’ main point. 7. Famous Socrates quote.