Component 3: Religion and EthicsTheme 4: Free Will and Determinism

Booklet 2

Knowledge and understanding of religion and belief

D Religious concepts of free will, with reference to the teachings of:Pelagius:The role of original sin, humanity maturing in God’s image and accepting the responsibility of free will, free will as used to follow God’s laws, the role of grace in salvation.Arminius:Denial of predestination, the effect of original sin on free will, God's 'prevenient' grace (the Holy Spirit) in allowing humans to exercise free will, the Elect and the possibility of rejecting God's grace, the election of believers being conditional on faith.

E Concepts of libertarianism:Philosophical (Jean Paul Sartre: man is not free not to be free, waiter illustration),

Scientific (Angela Sirigu: free floating DNA in the brain allows for free will),

psychological (Carl Rogers: humanist approach, self-actualisation).

F The implications of libertarianism and free will:The implications of libertarianism on moral responsibility: the worth of human ideas of rightness, wrongness and moral value, the value in blaming moral agents for immoral acts, the usefulness of normative ethics.The implications of free will on religious belief: the link between God and evil, the implications for God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence, the use of prayer and the existence of miracles.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as: How convincing are religious views on free will. The extent to which an individual has free choice. The extent to which philosophical, scientific and/or psychological views on libertarianisminevitably lead people to accept libertarianism. The extent to which free moral agents should follow a normative ethic. The degree to which free will makes the use of prayer irrelevant. The degree to which beliefs about free will can be reconciled with beliefs about predestination

1

Free WillFree will, in religious terms, is the opposite of predestination.

This is a fundamental belief of many religious believers. The idea that human free choice is vital and God-given. It is only in this way that humans choose a relationship with God, which is the only true relationship and one in which their character can develop.

You can make a synoptic link the work we did last year on Irenaeus. Only by having free will can humans be morally responsible for their actions.

This can be interpreted as meaning God does not decide people’s fates or their actions. Many would argue that free will is essential to the concepts of sin and the need for redemption. It also means that people truly are accountable for their actions on the Day of Judgement.

In Christianity free will is an essential part of being created by God. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are given limited free will. They can disobey God’s instructions due to the fact of free-will. God commanded them that they may freely eat every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were responsible for their disobedience when they chose to eat the fruit as they did it out of their own free will. Extract from Ellerton-Harris

Biblical quote that can be used to support free will.

‘Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.’ 2 Corinthians 9:7

This verse can be interpreted as St Paul saying that all giving can be done as a voluntary act. All acts can be free offerings of the heart.

1. Find and read: John 10: 18

4 D Information from Eduqas

Pelagius believed that original sin did not condemn humanity to predetermined sin; instead it allowed humanity to mature in God’s image by accepting the responsibility of free will. Humanity can use their free will to follow God’s laws or ask for forgiveness for sin.

Secondly, candidates need to appreciate Arminius' understanding of free will. Arminius denies predestination because it condemns God as the originator of all evil. Arminius believed original sin did have an effect on free will, but God's 'prevenient' grace (the Holy Spirit) allows humans to exercise freewill. The election of believers is conditional on faith

2

Religious free will – Pelagius Notes by Mark Lambe

Background:

Pelagius (354-420) was an ascetic monk: therefore, he had chosen a religious path that prioritised abstention from worldly pleasures, to pursue spiritual goals.

On a visit to Rome (the centre of the Roman Catholic Church), he was deeply concerned with the moral standards he found there. He blamed the abundance of sin, he found in Rome, on the Catholic Church’s predestination theology - later formulised by Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin (see earlier notes).

This is because, according to Pelagius, people were not trying to control their urge to sin, because they felt the urge to sin was predestined and therefore they had no choice but to sin.

In response Pelagius argued that people had the free will to resist sin. He wrote two major works on human free will: ‘On Nature’ and ‘Défense of the Freedom of the Will’.

Pelagius theories angered the Catholic Church establishment in Rome (see earlier notes on Augustine). So much so that Pelagius was eventually declared a heretic by the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage in 418AD.

(I’ve broken Pelagius’ free will theory into 4 parts – to make it easier to understand):

Part 1: the role of original sin

His theory, like Augustine’s, starts with an interpretation of ‘the fall’ of Adam and Eve, that created the ‘original sin’.

Pelagius argued an omnibenevolent God would not punish all of humanity for the sins of Adam and Eve. Therefore, in contrast to Augustine, Pelagius stated that Adam’s sin only affected Adam and is not inherited by all of humanity.

Pelagius supported this argument by considering evidence found in Deuteronomy 24:16 - ‘Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sins.’

Therefore, according to Pelagius, humanity does not inherit ‘original sin’ and therefore is not inflicted by an overwhelming desire to sin (see earlier notes on concupiscence by Augustine). As Pelagius stated: “we (humanity) may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault in our nature.”

In fact, Pelagius then went one step further by arguing that ‘the fall’ can be seen as a good thing for humanity.

He wrote: “If God had simply instructed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, and they had obeyed, they would have been acting like children. So, he forbade them from eating the fruit; this meant that they themselves had to make a free will decision, whether to eat or not to eat. Just as a young person needs to defy his parents in order to grow to maturity, so Adam and Eve needed to defy God in order to grow to maturity in his image.”

Therefore, in Pelagius’ view, Adam and Eve, by choosing to eat from the forbidden tree, were illustrating to God that they were mature enough to receive the gift of free will. It is this, free will,

3

that humanity inherits from Adam and Eve i.e. that all people are responsible, to God, for their own actions.

Part 2: free will is used to follow God’s laws

Therefore, Pelagius believed that people can use their freewill to follow God’s moral law; such as following the commandments.

Pelagius believed that following the commandments was within human free will capabilities because a loving God would not create commandments that humans did not have the capacity to follow. As Pelagius stated: “No one knows better the true measure of our strength than He who has given it to us ……”

When humanity freely chose to resist a temptation and thus keep to a commandment, Pelagius referred to it as ‘doing good works’.

Part 3: the role of ‘God’s grace’ in salvation

In the next part of his theory Pelagius wanted to make it clear, he was NOT arguing that humanity was completely able to fulfil the law (commandments etc.) without God’s help.

Instead, Pelagius argued that all ‘good works’ were carried out only with the grace of God. However, Pelagius saw God’s grace as enabling, not forcing, good works.

What he means by this is that God is acting as a guide to do good works. God tries to guide humanity towards doing good but within the constraints of human free will.

Therefore, humanity has the free will capacity to ignore God’s guidance and be sinful. In fact, Pelagius believes this ability to sin is actually a good thing because it emphasises the goodness when a person does do good works. This is a point Pelagius argued when he stated: “this very capacity to do evil is also good – good, I say. Because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent.”

Therefore, Pelagius believed, that people do have the free will to choose to do good works, or be sinful. However, when they freely choose to do good works, it is through the guiding grace of God. As Pelagius states: “Free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help.”

Part 4: the role of ‘God’s grace’ in salvation

Pelagius believed that if people, with their free will, choose not to follow God’s commandments, they can still freely seek forgiveness. Through God’s grace people can be forgiven for their sins and thus achieve salvation.

This is because Pelagius stated that God grants atonement, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to all those who freely choose to have faith in him.

Therefore, Pelagius is putting forward the idea of universal atonement i.e. Christ's death on the cross was for the forgiveness of all humanity. Moreover, this means that all humanity can achieve salvation in heaven.

However, Pelagius does clarify this slightly. He argued simply freely asking for forgiveness is not enough to receive God’s atonement. Repentance must be more than freely asking for forgiveness, it should also involve choosing not to do that sin again.

2. Use the PPP, video and the booklet to complete the summary sheet on Pelagius

4

Religious free will – Arminius

Background:

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a student of Theodore Beza. Beza was the son-in-law and successor of predestination supporter John Calvin. In his early life Arminius identified as a Calvinist.

Part 1: denial of predestination Arminius eventually rejected Calvinism. This is because he came to believe that God needed to be

defended against Calvinist predestination claims. This is because Arminius believed Calvinist predestination ideas reduced humanity to God’s pre-

programmed minions. That God just used humanity as a ‘play thing’ doing only as he willed. One particular element, of this, that Arminius highlighted was that if predestination was correct then

God must be responsible for all evil carried out by humanity. If humans only do as God will’s then it must be God’s will that causes all evil.

Therefore, Arminius stated he needed to defend God against predestination theories, so that: “God might not be considered the author of sin, nor man an automation in the hands of God.”

Part 2: the effect of original sin on free will

Unlike the earlier free will theology by Pelagius (see above notes), Arminius believed that original sin (when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit) was bad for humankind.

This is because, Arminius argued, all of humanity inherits original sin from Adam. Therefore, Arminius argues that humanities free will is compromised. As Arminius states: "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened.”

Therefore, like Calvin’s predestination argument (see earlier notes), Arminius believed that if left in this state a person’s natural impulse would be to sin.

Part 3: God's 'prevenient' grace (the Holy Spirit) allows humans to exercise freewill

However, unlike Calvin’s predestination doctrine, Arminius believed that ‘the fall’ did not completely fill humanity with the predetermined nature to sin. Therefore, humanity was not necessarily predestined to continually sin.

This is because of God’s grace. God’s grace, according to Arminius, is associated with the Holy Spirit. This link between God’s grace and the Holy Spirit is called ‘prevenient grace’. This is because it is God’s grace precedes each moral decision.

Arminius believes that within all humanity God has placed his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is seen by some Christians as the third divine person of ‘The Trinity’ i.e. the triune nature of God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Arminius believed that the Holy Spirit is the part of God that encourages all people to do good works. As Arminius stated the Holy Spirit will: "fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh.”

Arminius believed that the Holy Spirit is ever present to aid and assist all people through the variety of temptations they may face.

Part 4: the Elect and the possibility of rejecting God's grace5

However, the guidance provided by the Holy Spirit is based on a person’s own will to follow through on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As Arminius stated: “provided they (believers) stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, the Spirit preserves them from falling."

Therefore, a person’s impulse to sin, because of their inherited ‘original sin’, is balanced by the guidance of the God’s Holy Spirit.

Arminius makes it clear that the Holy Spirit only balances humanities impulse to sin, it does not override it. This is because the Holy Spirit does not force itself on to a person; it acts only as a God given moral guide. As Arminius states: “God has limited his control in correspondence with man's freedom.”

Therefore, all humanity has the freewill to decide whether to follow the will of the God’s Holy Spirit or give in to their natural inclination to sin. Thus, all moral agents have the ability to be saved from sin, but only if they freely follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, God has provided the possibility of salvation for all of humanity, but His provision only becomes effective for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with His holy spirit and thus accept God’s offer of grace.

3. Use the PPP, video and the booklet to complete the summary sheet on Pelagius

The Five articles of Remonstrance

6

The Five Articles of Remonstrance were theological propositions advanced in 1610 by followers of Jacobus Arminius who had died in 1609, in disagreement with interpretations of the teaching of John Calvin then current in the Dutch Reformed Church. They proved divisive, and those who supported them chose to call themselves "Remonstrants".

BACKGROUNDForty-six preachers and the two leaders of the Leyden state college for the education of preachers met in The Hague on 14 January 1610, to state in written form their views concerning all disputed doctrines. The document in the form of a remonstrance was drawn up by Jan Uytenbogaert and after a few changes was endorsed and signed by all in July.The Remonstrants did not reject confession and catechism, but did not acknowledge them as permanent and unchangeable canons of faith. They ascribed authority only to the word of God in Holy Scripture and were averse to all formalism. They also maintained that the secular authorities have the right to interfere in theological disputes to preserve peace and prevent schisms in the Church.The Five Articles of Remonstrance were subject to review by the Dutch National Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618–19 (see the Synod of Dort). The judgements of the Synod, known as the Canons of Dort (Dordrecht), opposed the Remonstrance with Five Heads of Doctrine. Each in answer to one of the Articles of the Remonstrance. It was this response which gave rise to what has since become known as the Five Points of Calvinism. Modified to form the acrostic TULIP they covered the soteriological topics within Calvinism, summarizing the essence of what constitutes an orthodox view on each of sin: total depravity, the basis of God's choice of the saved: unconditional election, the application of the benefits of the atonement: limited atonement, how the Holy Spirit brings man to repentance and faith: irresistible grace, and the assurance that the saints will bring forth the fruits of the Spirit: perseverance of the saints.

THE FIVE ARTICLESThe Five Articles of Remonstrance contrast with the Five Points of Calvinism on most points. Article I disagrees that election into Christ is unconditional. Rather, in this article the Remonstrants assert that election is conditional upon faith in Christ, and that God elects to salvation those He knows beforehand will have faith in Him. Article II espouses unlimited atonement, the concept that Christ died for all. This stands in contrast to the limited atonement of Calvinism, which asserts that Christ only died for those God chooses to be saved. Article III affirms the total depravity of man, that man cannot save himself. Article IV repudiates the Calvinistic concept of irresistible grace, contending that mankind has the free will to resist God's grace. Article V, rather than outright rejecting the notion of perseverance of the saints, argues that it may be conditional upon the believer remaining in Christ. The writers explicitly stated that they were not sure on this point, and that further study was needed. The text of the articles is given below.

Article I — That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this

7

his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II — That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.[1]

SOURCES Harrison, A. W. The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort. London: University of London Press,

1926. Schaff, Phillip. The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III, pp. 545-549.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xv.html

4. Summarise each Article in 20 words, add to your summary sheet

AO2 Lines of argumentHow convincing are religious views on free will

8

• The Bible says we make choices! Both Pelagius and Arminius offer convincing arguments for free will on the basis that there is biblical evidence to support the idea that humanity is supposed to be free. For example: 2 Corinthians 9:7 says ‘Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord.’ Only belief infree choice can counter complacency!• Reward/punishment only makes sense with choice! The Christian teaching about Heaven and Hell, as an eternal reward or punishment makes more sense if people have chosen God or rejected him freely rather than if God has marked people out independently from their will or actions. Otherwise we may ask what the purpose isof reward or punishment?• Choice and not predestination is a better fit with a loving God! Pelagius and Arminius offer a view of God that is much more consistent with his classical characteristics of being omnibenevolent and just. Original sin and Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines of the elect make God the author of sin and allow him to bearbitrary or partisan in his delivery of punishment.• Both Pelagius and Arminius could be accused of picking and choosing a Biblical basis – avoiding placing weight on the passages that suggest predestination.• Both Pelagius and Arminius could be seen as rejecting God’s omnipotence since they give the power for our ultimate end to humanity as well as God.• The doctrine of double predestination claims to take the entirety of scripture seriously. This was recognised early in the Christian church with Augustine and, later by Calvin.

Key questions that may arise could be:1. Does the Bible assume that we are free to make decisions?2. Are the traditional attributes of God (omnipotence, etc.) more compatible withfreewill or predestination?3. What features do Pelagius and Arminius include in their theories that agree withscripture?4. Is there anything in Pelagius / Arminius’ views that goes against scripture or churchteaching?5. Is the idea of a ‘loving God’ more compatible with having to make free choices in adifficult world or with having those choices made for us?

Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:1. Pelagius has a convincing view of free will for human beings because his theoryreflects the human experience of being free to choose, and directing our own lives,whilst at the same time allowing for God’s authority to reward and punish peoplefor their moral decisions.2. Arminius is convincing in his views on free will because he allows for a form ofpredestination that is consistent with the Bible (foreknowledge), whilst acceptingthat punishment and reward require us to take responsibility for our actions and ourown faith in this life.3. Neither one of the religious views on free will are at all convincing because theyemphasise human control and remove any real need for the central role of Christ inhuman salvation. God is relegated to the back seat, and this is unacceptable inChristian theology. The extent to which an individual has free choiceAO2 Lines of argument• Pelagius bases his position of free choice on the belief that humans are created innocent with the

9

potential to do good or evil. This corresponds with our sense that babies are indeed innocent and that they are not born in an evil state. However, in a fallen world we are heavily influenced by the habits of others – and so it is easy tosin.• For Arminius, humans do not have free will after the fall – they need God’s grace, which comes through faith. However, they are able to make choices in terms of developing their spiritual lives. Without this belief, we would be passive and not develop in holiness.• Predestination was never accepted in any major, early creed of the church. This seems to indicate that, even though Christianity believes in the importance of Grace and Faith, that choice-making is a part of the Christian path.• Pelagius has all people born innocent of sin. However, if we listen to modern scholarship we know that children learn from external influences. This means that the innocent child learns to sin from their surroundings. This means that they can never really be considered free to make their own choices.• If God has chosen who to save us before the foundation of the world, it does not make sense to call our choices free.• Scripture clearly states that we are predestined e.g. Romans 8:28-30 says ‘For those who he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son.’ Therefore we must not have free choice.

Key questions that may arise could be:1. Is Arminius right about free choice if God knows what we will do in advance?2. Are infants truly innocent and undetermined?3. What is the role of ‘Grace’ in the thinking of Pelagius and Arminius?4. What do most Christian churches officially teach on this subject?5. Do Pelagius / Arminius’ theories conform to our human experience?6. Do Pelagius / Arminius’ theories conform to scripture?

Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:1. Human freedom of choice is supported by both Pelagius and Arminius and theirappeal to Scripture and the plain sense of applying reward and punishment to onlyfree human beings.2. Human beings are not entirely free – both Pelagius and Arminius recognise thepower for sin and the need for Grace and forgiveness. In the case of Arminius, thepower of sin is such that we cannot come freely to God, though after receivingGod’s grace we can make choices about how to best grow in holiness.3. Belief in God’s omnipotence and omniscience is simply not compatible withfreedom of choice. It is theologically compelling to see god as the creator of eviland therefore to see humans as passive and helpless in their sin and their salvation.

5. Write detailed essay plans to the following questions

‘Religious views on free will are completely convincing.’ Evaluate this view‘Individuals have complete free choice.’ Evaluate this view

4 B

10

Introduction to Libertarianism from www.informationphilosopher.comLibertarianism is a school of thought that says humans are free from physical determinism and all the other diverse forms of determinism. Libertarians believe that strict determinism and freedom are incompatible.

"Radical" libertarians believe that one's actions are not determined by anything prior to a decision, including one's character and values, and one's feelings and desires. This extreme view, held by leading libertarians such as Robert Kane, Peter van Inwagen and their followers, denies that the will has control over actions

Critics of libertarianism properly attack this view. If an agent's decisions are not connected in any way with character and other personal properties, they rightly claim that the agent can hardly be held responsible for them.

A more conservative or "modest" libertarianism has been proposed by Daniel Dennett and Alfred Mele. They and many other philosophers and scientists have proposed two-stage models of free will that keep indeterminism in the early stages of deliberation, limiting it to creating alternative possibilities for action.

Most libertarians have been mind/body dualists who, following René Descartes, explained human freedom by a separate mind substance that somehow manages to act in the physical world. Some, especially Immanuel Kant, believed that our freedom only existed in a transcendental or noumenal world, leaving the physical world to be completely deterministic.

Religious libertarians say that God has given man a gift of freedom, but at the same time that God's foreknowledge knows everything that man will do.

In recent free will debates, these dualist explanations are called "agent-causal libertarianism." The idea is that humans have a kind of agency (an ability to act) that cannot be explained in terms of physical events.

One alternative to dualism is called "event-causal libertarianism," in which some events are uncaused or indeterministically caused. Note that eliminating strict determinism does not eliminate causality.

We can still have events that are caused by indeterministic prior events. And these indeterministic events have prior causes, but the prior causes are not sufficient to determine the events precisely. In modern physics, for example, events are only statistical or probabilistic. We can call this soft causality, meaning not pre-determined but still having a causal explanation.

Still another position is to say that human freedom is uncaused or simply non-causal. This would eliminate causality. Some philosophers think "reasons" or "intentions" are not causes and describe their explanations of libertarian freedom as "non-causal."

It is claimed by some philosophers that libertarian accounts of free will are unintelligible. No coherent idea can be provided for the role

11

of indeterminism and chance, they say. They include the current chief spokesman for libertarianism, Robert Kane.

The first libertarian, Epicurus, argued that as atoms moved through the void, there were occasions when they would "swerve" from their otherwise determined paths, thus initiating new causal chains.

The modern equivalent of the Epicurean swerve is quantum mechanical indeterminacy, again a property of atoms. We now know that atoms do not just occasionally swerve, they move unpredictably whenever they are in close contact with other atoms.

Everything in the material universe is made of atoms in unstoppable perpetual motion. Deterministic paths are only the case for very large objects, where the statistical laws of atomic physics average to become nearly certain dynamical laws for billiard balls and planets.

Many determinists are now willing to admit that there is real indeterminism in the universe. Libertarians should agree with them that if indeterministic chance was the direct direct cause of our actions, that would not be freedom with responsibility.

Determinists might also agree that if chance is not a direct cause of our actions, it would do no harm. In which case, libertarians should be able to convince determinists that if chance provides real alternatives to be considered by the adequately determined will, it provides real alternative possibilities for thought and action. It provides freedom and creativity.

Libertarians should give the determinists, at least the compatibilists, the kind of freedom they say they want, one that provides an adequately determined will and actions for which we can take responsibility.

1. Create a list of five libertarians and a brief summary of their ideas.

12

Philosophical Libertarianism by Jean-Paul Sartre by Mark Lambe

Background

Philosophy has several supporting arguments for free will. However, the syllabus wants you to specifically consider philosophical support, for libertarianism, from the French existentialist (check out this term on the internet) philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80).

Sartre’s libertarian beliefs can be summed up by the following quote: “there is no determinism—man is free, man is freedom.”

Freedom is the result of two things: no God and self-consciousness

1. No God Sartre starts his libertarian theory by arguing God does not exist. This can be seen when he stated:

“There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight. He cannot escape choosing."

What Sartre is arguing is that because there is no God there is no supreme/higher power controlling humanity. Therefore, he believed humankind is free because there is no all-powerful controlling deity.

Interestingly Sartre stated humanity has ‘condemned’ to freedom i.e. people had no choice but to be free. The irony of this was not lost on Sartre when he argued humankind is totally free to make decisions with one exception: “man is not free not to be free”.

2. Self-Conscious Sartre also argued people can understand they have free will because humanity is ‘pour-soi’ (‘being

for itself’), unlike animals who are just en-soi (‘being in itself’). The difference is that ‘en-soi’ beings are not self-conscious i.e. aware of themselves; whereas pour-

soi beings have possession of a self-consciousness i.e. an awareness of their own existence. Sartre argued that humanity's self-consciousness enables people to think about and consider the

different possible futures that might come about from different actions. Therefore, people can reflect on their own lives and the choices they can make.

This, according to Sartre, opens up a distance between a person’s self-consciousness and the physical world in which we all exist. Sartre calls this ‘the gap’ and it is this gap that allows people to have free will.

This is because people have the ability to not just react to what is going on in the physical world around them (which would be just determinism).

People can instead think/consider what are the possible alternative actions (and their consequences) they could do to a particular physical stimulus e.g. in reaction to someone insulting me, I could insult them back, I could hit them, I could stay silent etc. Because people are self-conscious they can reflect on each possible action they can take (intention, consequences etc.) before freely choosing which course of action is the most appropriate.

Bad Faith

13

Sartre used ‘reverse psychology’ to prove that people have free will. According to Sartre, humankind’s freedom is obvious because of the way people try to deny their own freedom.

This is because, Sartre argued, freedom can bring emotional pain for the individual. Therefore, people will try to avoid the reality of their own freedom. Therefore, they create a self-deception, in which they deny their own freedom – Sartre called this 'bad faith'.

Bad faith, according to Sartre is the attempt, by people, to escape the pain and anguish of life by pretending to themselves that they are not free. People convince themselves that their attitudes and actions are determined by things outside of themselves e.g. their innate character, the situations they find themselves in and their roles in life etc. In fact, anything that does not mean they have to accept they are completely responsible for their own circumstances in life.

This attempt to escape accepting responsibility (bad faith) for one’s own life is, according to Sartre, clear evidence that, in fact, one does have complete responsibility (freedom) for one’s own life.

Illustration of Bad Faith - Waiter

Sartre illustrated the ‘bad faith’ with the example of a café waiter. Sartre argues that a café waiter’s movements and conversation are a little too "waiter-esque".

Sartre explains what he means by this: “the waiters voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries food rigidly and ostentatiously; his movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid."

For Sartre, the waiters exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is ‘play acting’ as a waiter. He has allowed himself to just become an automaton i.e. that his particular role, as a waiter, determines his every action and attitude.

However, Sartre argues that the waiter, is in fact, freely deceiving himself. He is ultimately aware that he is not merely a waiter, but is freely deceiving himself that he is determined by his role.

Therefore, the waiter is denying his own freedom (bad faith) but by using his own freedom to do so i.e. the waiter ultimately knows that he is free and could give up been a waiter at any time, but freely denies this to himself.

Therefore, for Sartre, bad faith is paradoxical in nature because when acting in bad faith (denying one’s freedom) a person is using their freedom to do this.

Therefore, people, such as the waiter, are not determined by their role or circumstances, all people are free to choose who they are and how they live.

Gift and A Curse

Sartre theory supports the libertarian argument that people are free. However, Sartre’s believes such freedom is both ‘a gift and a curse’ for humanity. The gift: people have the freedom of making something out of their lives. The curse: freedom brings the responsibility that a person must develop their own lives.

SPARK NOTES ON SARTRE14

THE GIFT AND CURSE OF FREEDOM

In the early phase of his career, Sartre focused mainly on his belief in the sanctity of every individual consciousness, a consciousness that results from each person’s subjective and individual experience of the world. He was particularly attuned to the ways that people are objectified by the gaze of others. As Sartre became more intimately involved in the concrete political questions of his day, he came to focus more on the various larger social structures that systematically objectify people and fail to recognize or affirm their individual consciousness and innate freedom. These structures include capitalist exploitation, colonialism, racism, and sexism.

Sartre’s focus on individual freedom shaped his view of Marxism. Politically, Sartre was for many years closely allied to the French Communist Party. However, he never actually joined the party, largely because of his ever-present suspicion of authoritarian states and institutions of all kinds, especially after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Sartre always harbored a healthy libertarian or anarchist streak. He wanted the working class to collectively overthrow the capitalist system and believed that any political struggle should affirm and allow for the individual freedom of all human beings. In accordance with this view, Sartre never accepted Marx’s view that economic and social realities define consciousness. Rather, Sartre affirmed that people are alwaysessentially free. No matter how objectified they may be, the gifts of freedom and consciousness mean that they always have the possibility of making something out of their circumstance of objectification. In Sartre’s view, individual freedom of consciousness is humanity’s gift—as well as its curse, since with it comes the responsibility to shape our own lives.THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY

Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is, with total freedom comes total responsibility. He believed that even those people who wish not to be responsible, who declare themselves not responsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of their inaction. Sartre’s moral philosophy maintains that ethics are essentially a matter of individual conscience. Sartre reveals much about his own ethics in his writings about oppressive societal structures and the ways in which individuals might ideally interact with each other to affirm their respective humanities, but he is dismissive of any version of universal ethics. He is clear in his belief that morals are always first and foremost a matter of subjective, individual conscience.

THE DIFFICULTY OF KNOWING THE SELF

For Sartre, for any individual to claim “that’s just the way I am” would be a statement of self-deception. Likewise, whenever people internalize the objectified identity granted to them by other people or by society, such as servile woman or dutiful worker, they are guilty of self-deception. Every individual person is a “being-for-itself” possessed of self-consciousness, but he or she does not possess an essential nature and has only a consciousness and a self-consciousness, which are eternally changeable. Whenever people tell themselves that their nature or views are unchangeable, or that their social position entirely determines their sense of self, they are deceiving themselves. Sartre believed it

15

is always possible to make something out of what one has been made into. This task of self-actualization, however, involves a complex process of recognizing the factual realities outside of one’s self that are acting on the self (what Sartre calls facticity) and exactly how those realities are working, as well as knowing fully that one possesses a consciousness independent of those factors.For Sartre, the only truly authentic outlook recognizes one’s true state as a being possessed of self-consciousness whose future conscious state of being is always a matter of choice, even as that conscious state will itself always be in flux. That is, even though we are ultimately responsible for our own consciousness, consciousness of self is never quite identical to consciousness itself. This difficult paradox—that one is responsible for one’s own consciousness, even though that consciousness is never quite graspable, since it is based on nothingness—goes to the heart of Sartre’s existentialism and is crucial to his conceptions of human freedom and moral responsibility.EN-SOI (BEING-IN-ITSELF) VS. POUR-SOI (BEING-FOR-ITSELF)Sartre defines two types, or ways, of being: en-soi, or being-in-itself, and pour-soi, or being-for-itself. He uses the first of these, en-soi, to describe things that have a definable and complete essence yet are not conscious of themselves or their essential completeness. Trees, rocks, and birds, for example, fall into this category. Sartre uses pour-soi to describe human beings, who are defined by their possession of consciousness and, more specifically, by their consciousness of their own existence—and, as Sartre writes, by their consciousness of lacking the complete, definable essence of the en-soi. This state of being-for-itself is not just defined by self-consciousness—it would not exist without that consciousness. In Sartre’s philosophical system, the interplay and difference between these two manners of being is a constant and indispensable point of discussion.

THE IMPORTANCE AND DANGER OF THE OTHER

Following Hegel, Sartre writes that an individual person, or being-for-itself, can become cognizant of his own existence only when he sees himself being perceived by another being-for-itself. That is, we can formulate a conscious state of being and an identity only when we are confronted by others who are also possessed of that consciousness and we apprehend ourselves in relation to them. As Sartre explains, however, the encounter with the Other is tricky, at least initially, because we may first believe that in being perceived by another conscious being we are being objectified or essentialized by that being, who may appear to be regarding us only as type, appearance, or imagined essence. In turn, we may seek to regard others as definable, simple objects not possessed of individual consciousness.

The notion of the Other plays a central role in Sartre’s thinking and writing about large-scale systems of social objectification, such as colonialism, racism, and sexism. Such systems enable the Other to be falsely seen as an object, a definable being-in-itself, and not as a free individual, a being-for-itself, possessed of his or her own undefinable, conscious state of being.

2. Use Cornell note taking to make your own summary of Sartre’s ideas on Libertarianism.

16

Psychological Libertarianism by Carl Rogers (Mark Lambe)Also read www.simplypsychology.org/carl-rogers.html

Background

Potential libertarian support comes from the psychological school of thought called ‘Humanism’. Humanism is a psychological approach that encourages people to reflect on their own behaviour, as

opposed to the psychologist drawing conclusions about their behaviour (as behaviourist’s like Pavlov do – see earlier notes). Humanism is sometimes referred to as the ‘phenomenological approach’.

One of the early founders of Humanism was American psychologist Carl Rogers (1902-1987).

People lives can become determined

Rogers believed that people were born experiencing beings, who live in the present and have the potential to respond freely to their current situations.

However, Rogers concedes that a person’s life can become determined by external conditioning (behaviourist theory – supported by Pavlov). Roger’s particularly believed that conditioning can occur due to parental, peer or social pressures e.g. to conform to societies ‘norms’.

Rogers argued that young children do have their own developed thoughts and ideas about numerous aspects of life, such as: politics, religion, sexual matters etc.

When a child’s parents, peers or society disapprove of their thoughts and feelings the child considers such thoughts are wrong.

Moreover, the child believes the only way to achieve acceptance (from their parents, peers or society) is to forget about their own free willed thoughts and feelings and instead embrace those of their parents, peers etc.

Therefore, the child is, in essence, rejecting their own ideas and thoughts and just become a deterministic robot copying the ideas and thoughts of their parents, peers etc. e.g. a child may freely feel they are attracted to someone of the same sex, however, because of parental, peer etc. pressures, the child will bury away these free willed feelings.

Self-Actualisation: the theory

Rogers, however, rejected that such deterministic factors were permanent. This is because he believed that people can still achieve freewill through the process of: ‘self-actualisation’. Self-actualisation basically involves a person getting in touch with their own feelings and then acting on them.

Rogers’ believed that this was a personal journey that was unique to each person. As Rogers stated: Ro"As no one else can know how we perceive, we are the best experts on ourselves." gers

believed that if a person can act on their own free will feelings, they can break the ‘chains’ of determinism and express their own freewill i.e. they can self-actualise.

Rogers’ believes that full self-actualisation occurs when a person’s ‘ideal self’ (i.e. who they would freely like to be) is the same as their actual ‘true self’.

17

Self-Actualisation: develops full potential

Rogers believed that it is only when a person achieves freedom, through self-actualisation, that they can fully fulfil their full potential. Rogers describes an individual who has self-actualised as a fully functioning person.

As Rogers stated: “The paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change for the better.”

3. Create a mind map on the key ideas of Carl Rogers, use the booklet, the simply psychology article and the video link on the PPP

18

Carl Rogers

Scientific Libertarianism by Dr Angela Sirigu by Mark Lambe

Background: Over the last century science has been seen to support determinism (see earlier notes). However, in recent years advancements, particularly in genetics and cognitive neuroscience, have

potentially developed support for libertarian ideas.

Cognitive Neuroscience One such recent development, in neuroscience (the study of the brain) was carried out by Dr Angela

Sirigu and her team, in early 2012, at the Cognitive Neuroscience Centre in Bron, France. They reported that they had potentially found that free will is sited in a part of the brain called the

parietal cortex (check out on the internet where the partial cortex is in the brain).

The Experiment Sirigu discovered the above by electrically jolting the parietal cortex in seven patients, undergoing

brain surgery. Each of the seven patients was awake during surgery, so they could answer questions put to them by

Sirigu. Each patient claimed to feel a desire to move when they were jolted by the electricity: such as to wiggle their fingers, roll their tongues or move their limbs. Stronger electrical pulses convinced patients they had actually carried out these movements, though in reality their bodies did not move.

What Sirigu found from the above experiments was that the parietal cortex was sending only one specific instruction (wiggle your finger, roll your tongue, etc.) to another part of the brain, called the premotor cortex.

The premotor cortex then returns the outcome of the movement (the finger wiggled, etc.) to the parietal cortex. As Sirigu states: “You need both systems, the parietal and premotor cortex to generate intention and check whether this is followed through.”

Sirigu’s Conclusions However, the fundamental part of the experiment for Sirigu is that the partial cortex only passes on

one specific instruction to the premotor cortex. Therefore, according to Sirigu, the parietal cortex must go through a variety of possible movements that could be made but only selects one to send to the premotor cortex that then makes the move.

Therefore, at some point the parietal cortex must decide which particular movement to make from a variety of potential options. As Sirigu argues: “What it tells us is there are specific brain regions that are involved in the consciousness of your movement.” Therefore, there is a part of the brain (the parietal cortex) that potentially allows people to make a specific decision from several choices.

Therefore, Sirigu believes that she has discovered the region of the brain that illustrates the mechanics of free will.

Support

Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London, believes the above scientific theory breaks new ground on the study of free will.

This is because it pinpoints the specific part of the brain where free will resides. As he states: Sirigu’s experiment is “extremely interesting, because up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will.”

Scientific Libertarianism Dr Angela Sirigu 19

Traditionally science has been used by determinists to illustrate their arguments e.g. biological determinism etc. However, recent advancements, particularly in genetics and cognitive neuroscience, potentially support libertarianism. One such recent development was by Dr Angela Sirigu and her team, in early 2012, at the Cognitive Neuroscience Centre in Bron, France. They found that free will is sited in a part of the brain called the parietal cortex. Sirigu electrically jolted this region of the brain in seven patients, undergoing brain surgery, each of which were awake during surgery, so they could answer questions. They each claimed to feel a desire to move when they were jolted: such as to wiggle their fingers, roll their tongues or move their limbs. Even stronger electrical pulses convinced patients they had actually done these movements, although their bodies remained motionless. Sirigu argues this tells us that the parietal cortex of the brain makes predictions about potential future bodily movements.

However, it only sends one specific instruction to another part of the brain, called the premotor cortex. The premotor cortex then returns the outcome of the movement to the parietal cortex. As Sirigu states: “You need both systems, the parietal and premotor cortex to generate intention and check whether this is followed through.” Therefore, the partial cortex goes through a variety of possible movements that could be made but selects just one to send to the premotor cortex that then makes the move. Therefore, at some point the parietal cortex ‘wills’ what particular movement to make from a variety of potential options. As Sirigu argues: “What it tells us is there are specific brain regions that are involved in the consciousness of your movement.” Therefore, there is a part of the brain that potentially allows moral agents to make a specific decision from several available choices. Therefore, suggesting moral agents have free will when making decisions.

Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London says the above experiment, by Sirigu, breaks new ground on the study of free will because it pinpoints the specific part of the brain where free will resides. As he states: Sirigu’s experiment is “extremely interesting, because up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will.” Other neuroscientists have also identified possible areas of human free will. Randy Jirtle, a professor of radiation oncology at Duke University, and assistant Robert Waterland are two such neuroscientists. They found that small changes to a mother’s diet could have a dramatic impact on the gene expression of their baby. What they mean by gene expression is that the ‘Human Genome Project’ may have identified the 25,000 or so genes that make up the human genetic code but genes themselves still need instructions for what to do, and where and when to do it e.g. a human liver cell contains the same DNA as a brain cell, yet somehow it knows to code only those proteins needed for the functioning of the liver. Those instructions are known as ‘epigenetic switches’. However, the greatest surprise of their discovery was that epigenetic switches are sensitive to the environment of the gene carrier i.e. what a mother eats in pregnancy, her behaviour or surroundings could affect the ‘epigenetic switches’ and the foetus and thus the health and behaviour of their child.

More and more studies have supported these findings; with researchers reporting that, for example, that an extra bit of a vitamin, a brief exposure to a toxin, even an added dose of mothering can tweak the epigenetic switches; thereby alter the software of the foetus’ genes in ways that will affect an individual's body and brain for life. Through the study of epigenetic switches, it would appear that moral agents have control over their genetic legacy. As Jirtle states: "Before, genes predetermined outcomes. Now everything we do, everything we eat or smoke can affect our gene expression and that of future generations. Epigenetic switches introduces the concept of free will into our idea of genetics."

More information on Dr Sirigu20

‘Possible site of free will found in brain (New Scientist) By Ewen Callaway

Free will, or at least the place where we decide to act, is sited in a part of the brain called the parietal cortex, new research suggests.

When a neurosurgeon electrically jolted this region in patients undergoing surgery, they felt a desire to, say, wiggle their finger, roll their tongue or move a limb. Stronger electrical pulses convinced patients they had actually performed these movements, although their bodies remained motionless.

“What it tells us is there are specific brain regions that are involved in the consciousness of your movement,” says Angela Sirigu (pdf format), a neuroscientist at the CNRS Cognitive Neuroscience Centre in Bron, France, who led the study.

Brain stimulation

Sirigu’s team, including neurosurgeon Carmine Mottolese, performed the experiments on seven patients undergoing brain surgery to remove tumours. In all but one case, the cancers were located far from the parietal cortex and other areas that Mottolese stimulated. One patient’s tumour sat near the parietal cortex, but did not interfere with the experiments, Sirigu says. And because the patients were awake during the surgery, they could answer questions. “Did you move?” a researcher asked a 76-year-old man after lightly zapping a point on his parietal cortex. “No. I had a desire to roll my tongue in my mouth,” he responded. After a stronger pulse to the parietal cortex, a 42-year-old man exclaimed: “My hand, my hand moved.” Sirigu’s team saw no signs of movement.

Action loop

Sirigu’s team also discovered that stimulating another brain area – the premotor cortex – provoked involuntary, unconscious movements in the same patients. The team’s work points to two brain areas involved in the decision to move a limb and then execute the action. Sirigu speculates that the parietal cortex makes predictions about future movements and sends instructions to the premotor cortex, which returns the outcome of the movement to the parietal cortex. In day-to-day life, we rely on both brain regions to move about, she says. “You need both systems, the parietal and premotor cortex to generate intention and check whether this is followed through.”

‘Ground breaking’

Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London, says the experiment breaks ground because it pinpoints volition to a specific part of the brain, allowing scientists to experimentally control it.

“That’s extremely interesting, because up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will,” he says.

However, Haggard says no one should be surprised that the experience of volition can be liked to specific brain areas. “I can’t think of any way you can have conscious experience other than as a result of neurons in your brain firing.” Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1169896)

Article from www.bioedge.org21

"Possible site of free will found in brain" was one of the more intriguing headlines in New Scientist this month. Angela Sirigu, of the CNRS Cognitive Neuroscience Centre in Bron, France, says that there is a specific brain region, the parietal cortex, involved in the consciousness of movement. When it was stimulated with an electrical probe during surgery, patients felt a desire to, say, wiggle their finger, roll their tongue or move a limb. Stronger electrical pulses convinced them that they had actually performed these movements, even they had been motionless.

In the rather dry words of her team's article in Science, "Our study suggests that motor intention and awareness are emerging consequences of increased parietal activity before movement execution." In other words, the sensation that we will to do something is illusory. What really happens is that first of all the neurons crackle and fire and then we feel like doing it. As the article points out, free will is "appealing from a spiritual point of view", but contemporary research has all but disproved it.

Patrick Haggard, a British neuroscientist, told New Scientist that the experiment pinpoints volition in a specific part of the brain. "That's extremely interesting, because up to now it has been very difficult for neuroscientists to deal with the idea of intentions or wishes or will," he says. No one should be surprised, says Haggard, that the experience of volition can be linked to specific brain areas. "I can't think of any way you can have conscious experience other than as a result of neurons in your brain firing."

So, if there is no free will, is there really any role for ethics at all? That is the intriguing question which neuroscience is posing more stridently every year.~ New Scientist, May 7; Science, May

4. Explain Dr Sirigu’s experiments5. What conclusions did her team come to after the experiments?

4 F Implications of Free will/Libertarianism on Moral Responsibility22

Background on Free will/libertarianism and Moral Responsibility

The implications of free will/libertarianism for moral responsibility are in many ways the opposite of hard determinism.

This is because libertarians believe a person’s life is completely free from deterministic factors; such as God’s omnipotent predestination power, psychological behaviourism, biological determinism or universal causation etc.

Therefore, if libertarianism is correct that the individual has free will, then each person must have complete control over their moral attitudes, moral actions, etc.

The value in blaming moral agents for immoral acts

The above theory that human free will leads to moral responsibility has several implications. One such implication is that there is moral value in blaming a person for any immoral acts they

commit i.e. it would seem morally fair to punish people for committing immoral acts. This is because the choice of whether to act morally, or not, is within a person’s own free ‘willed’ moral control.

This is why Sartre partly viewed free will as a curse for humanity - total free will comes with total moral responsibility. Sartre believed that even those people who wish not to take responsibility, for their actions, are still making a free choice to do so.

Support for the above theory can be found in the UK legal system e.g. legal courts accept what is known as ‘rational choice theory’.

Rational choice theory is the belief that people are ‘reasoning actors’ who freely weigh up the costs and benefits of their actions, and therefore make freely willed rational choices when committing an illegal act.

Therefore, the UK legal system takes a free will view and thus believe it is right to punish people when found guilty of a crime.

The usefulness of normative ethics

A further implication of libertarianism is that they appear to uphold the usefulness of normative ethics.

The aim of all normative ethics is to act as a moral guide, helping a person to do perceived good actions and avoiding wrongful ones.

As libertarianism holds that people have the freedom to choose their actions, normative ethics can be seen as a useful guide to helping people freely choice the right course of action.

Normative ethics maybe particularly useful when a person is ignorant of societies moral norms. This is because without a normative ethic to guide them, they may become amoral i.e. lacking any moral sense.

Let’s consider the usefulness of Act Utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism is an atheist normative ethic created by Jeremy Bentham, based on human pleasure (see earlier notes).

23

Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism basically revolved around, what he called: ‘the principle of utility’ i.e. an action should only be carried out if the consequences of that action bring about the maximum happiness, for the maximum amount of people, affected by the action.

However, Bentham is pre-supposing, with the principle of utility, that people have the free will to select the course of action which will bring about the greatest happiness e.g. if holding the door open for my teacher would bring about the greatest happiness; then the individual is morally guided by Act Utilitarianism to do this action.

Therefore, if libertarianism is right, when stating that all human decisions are free willed, then normative ethics, like Act Utilitarianism, are of value.

6. What are the implications of free will and libertarianism on moral responsibility7. What are the implications of free will and libertarianism on normative ethics.

24

Implications of Free will/Libertarianism on Religious Belief

8. Create a spider diagram with the following headings

Implications for God’s omnipotence,

Implications for God’s Omni benevolence,

The use of prayer,

The existence of miracles

The link between God and evil

The implications for God’s omnipotence.

Monotheistic religions (such as Islam, Christianity, etc) generally attribute the quality of omnipotence to their deity.

Definition of Omnipotence: having unlimited power. The theory of free will can question whether God is omnipotent. This is because humanities free will

could be an illustration that God does not have the omnipotent power to carry out an eternal predestination plan for all of humanity.

This point was potentially highlighted by Augustine: he reacted angrily to the free will teachings of Pelagius (see earlier notes) because his free will theology, according to Augustine, reduced the omnipotent nature of God.

This is because Pelagius theories made it possible for a mere human being to decide freely whether to be morally good or sinful. The implication of this was that the individual would then be able to tell an omnipotent deity whether to give them salvation. Augustine, argued this would be a denial of God’s omnipotence.

Therefore, Augustine is making it clear that concept of free will would deny God’s omnipotence. Moreover, psychologist Sartre believed that humanities free will not only illustrated there was no

omnipotent God controlling human choice but was, indeed, a clear illustration there was no God at all. As Sartre states: “There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight."

However, it can be argued that the above points do not illustrate that free will diminishes God’s omnipotence.

This is because they instead show that God illustrates His omnipotent nature in different ways e.g. Arminius argued that within all humanity God has placed his guiding Holy Spirit (see earlier notes). Therefore, it could be argued that only an omnipotent God could have the power to do this.

The implications for God’s omnibenevolence.

Monotheistic religions also attribute the quality of omnibenevolence to their deity. Definition of Omnibenevolence: the quality of ‘all-loving’ or ‘all good’. The theory of free will can seem to support the idea of God’s omnibenevolence. This is because the

concept of free will supports the idea that salvation can be potentially achieved by all humanity. As Pelagius and Arminius theorised (see earlier notes) all humanity can achieve salvation using their free will; therefore, God is being loving to all of his creation.

25

This point was supported by Arminius’ supporters (called Remonstrants) at the ‘Synod of Dort’ in 1619. One of their ‘Five Articles of Remonstrance’ was that salvation (or condemnation) on the day of judgment is freely conditioned by the faith (or unbelief) of the individual.

Therefore, God’s omnibenevolent nature is supported by free will theory because it opens the possibility that all people can achieve salvation by freely choosing to follow God’s eternal moral laws.

This is in contrast with predestination theory, as stated by both Augustine and Calvin, which illustrated that God only appears to predestine some people – the elect. The rest, the reprobates, will not be saved by God and will inevitably descend to hell post-mortem. This clearly questions God’s omnibenevolent nature because God would appear to be punishing and rewarding people on behaviour only He had control over. Based on the above point Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) stated that God must be ‘a monster’. This is because, as Russell stated: “A God that punishes or rewards on the basis of God’s own eternal decisions in unfair and immoral.”

(Optional Note: the above could be potentially countered because one of the other attributes of God, given by the monotheistic religions, is that God is omniscient (the quality of been all-knowing). It can, therefore, be argued that God knew that humanity would do great deeds of evil, such as the holocaust, with the free will He allowed humanity. However, despite this knowledge, God still went ahead and gave humanity freewill; which is not the actions of an omnibenevolent God.)

26

The use of prayer.

A further implication of free will theory is the value of prayer. Definition of prayer: from the Latin ‘precariis’ - which means to ask earnestly. If free will holds true, then it can be argued prayer is meaningfulness. This is because prayer can be

used to seek God’s guidance on the correct moral path or to seek His forgiveness for sin. Both these uses of prayer are supported by the theory of free will.

To seek God’s guidance on morality

Pelagius argues that humanity is not able to fulfil God’s moral law without divine aid (see earlier notes).

Pelagius stated: “God helps us by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of our heart. Whilst He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of the devil …”

Therefore, Pelagius believed that people have the free will to choose to do good works, or be sinful. However, when their free will chooses to do good works, it is through the guiding grace of God. As Pelagius states: “Free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help.”

This divine aid to guide people down the righteous path could be developed through prayer i.e. as the individual opens themselves up to God, so they are opening themselves up more to God’s guiding light.

Seek His forgiveness for sin Pelagius also believed that if people, with their free will, do choose not to follow God’s moral law,

they can still seek forgiveness for their sins. Pelagius stated that God grants atonement, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to all those who freely choose to seek forgiveness/repentance.

Repentance can be gained, by all individuals, through prayer.

The existence of miracles Definition of miracle: from the Latin ‘miraculum’ - meaning ‘wonder’. However, the term miracle tends to have a more specific religious meaning, perhaps best expressed

by David Hume: ‘an event that appears to break the laws of nature and so is held as an act of God.’ The acceptance of free will theory has a negative effect on belief in miraculous events. This is

because divine miracles, by their nature, are predetermining an outcome e.g. in Joshua 10:13 in the Judeo-Christian Bible, it states that God made the sun and moon stand still so that Joshua could defeat the enemies of Israel. Therefore, God was clearly predetermining the outcome of a major event, with a miracle.

This directly conflicts with the theory of free will where all events are free of determinism. Therefore, illustrating the incompatible nature of free will and miracles.

27

The link between God and evil.

The last implication of free will theory, for religious belief, is the link between God and evil. The theory of free will theory could suggest that God is not responsible for evil. This can be illustrated with the theory of Arminius (see earlier notes). Arminius wrote his free will

theory, as a response to the pre-destination ideas of John Calvin. This is because he felt the need to defend God’s nature against pre-destination so that: “God might not be considered the author of all sin.”

The reason why free will theory can defend God against the above accusation is that free will gives the individual the freedom to choose to do good works or to sin. As Pelagius argued: “this very capacity to do evil is also good – good, I say. Because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent.” Therefore, free will theory makes it clear that the responsibility for evil is humankinds and not God’s.

This above idea is further supported by the theodicy of Irenaeus (130-202). Definition of a theodicy: a religious argument put forward to defend the existence of the God, but

justifies why God allows both moral and natural evil. Irenaeus argued God created humanity imperfect. God did this because He made humankind's task

in life to develop into God's perfection. To develop into God’s perfection, humanity must freely make moral decisions; every moral decision where the person chooses to do ‘good works’ develops that person closer God’s perfection.

However, free will opens up the possibility that people will choose to be morally evil e.g. the holocaust. However, Irenaeus Theodicy illustrates this is not God’s responsibility. This is because, Irenaeus claims, moral evil is a necessary part of life because it enables humans to develop in to His perfection. Without evil moral decisions would have no real value i.e. humanity would not develop into God’s perfection such as developing the virtues of courage and perseverance (which Irenaeus called ‘second-order goods’)

Therefore, God cannot stop moral evil occurring because this would compromise human freedom and, therefore, stop humanity having the potential to develop in His perfection.

Therefore, Irenaeus, in his theodicy, is clearly supporting the idea that free will entails that humanity is responsible for the moral evil; God cannot intervene because this would stop the development of humanity.

Why Free Will, Prayer and an Omnipotent God Are Mutually Exclusive28

By Jeff SchweitzerReligious morality has maintained a powerful grip on the human psyche for two millennia through the concept of “free will.” Without the notion of free will granted by an omniscient and omnipotent god, religion would run into an immediate and insurmountable conundrum. Humans would be automatons, doing god’s bidding with no choice. By definition, with no free will, all actions by all people would be a direct expression of god’s will. That would clearly pose a problem, with war atrocities, rape, torture, genocide, and the full repertoire of human debauchery reflecting poorly on the almighty. No religion would tolerate such a grim view of the creator, so there must be a way to reconcile the reality of ugly human behavior with an all-powerful, all-knowing god. David Hume nicely summarized this tension between a kind god and the unkind reality of human existence, saying, “Our natural terrors present the notion of a devilish and malicious deity: Our propensity to adulation leads us to acknowledge an excellent and divine. And the influence of these opposite principles are various, according to the different situation of the human understanding.”Here is the central dilemma: religion must somehow explain the existence of evil in the presence of god, an endeavor known as theodicy. Despite heroic efforts, all attempts at theodicy have failed completely. The bottom line is clear. In a world that knows evil, an all-powerful god responsible for all creation must be evil. That interpretation is unavoidable and certain. But given that many people will wish to dispute the claim, I will show next how no other conclusion is possible.Some who oppose the notion of a brutish ugly deity propose that god did not intentionally create evil. If so, that begs the question of evil’s origin if not from the hand of god. In one scenario, god allowed evil to flourish as an unintended consequence once his newly-minted Adam and Eve started roaming the earth; in another, evil sprang to life without god’s permission, as a rude cosmic surprise. Both scenarios would give god a pass on being evil, but would at the same time mean he was not omnipotent. None of the three scenarios is looking too good for the big guy. Let’s review: in the first case, an all-powerful god must be evil since evil exists and god created all, including evil; in the second case, god’s work got beyond his control, a mistake not typically associated with an all-powerful thing; in the third case, god not only does not control our fate, he is incapable of peering into the future, a decidedly un-god-like attribute.Religion solves this conundrum the old-fashioned way: by making up an answer with truly contorted logic. The answer in this case is free will, but only for human beings. Somehow, when god gathered his last strength to make people, before taking a one-day vacation, he decided, unlike with beavers or parrots, to give his new creation the ability to choose a path not preordained by god. This divine grant of free will solves the dilemma because people can choose to be evil without implicating god. Whew! Unfortunately, the idea does not hold water. Even the briefest examination lays waste to the claim that free will was or could be granted by an all-powerful god. The idea is an absurd oxymoron: the very act of granting free will would destroy the power do so. Let’s see why by looking at the combination of free will, evil, and prayer in the presence of an omniscient god.We can start with prayer. If god has a plan for everything and everyone, prayer could not affect his behavior. If he changed his plan according to a prayer, that would be an admission that god’s original plan was flawed, making him fallible. If only those prayers that fit into god’s original plan are answered, then the purpose of praying is defeated. With preordained fate, prayer could not change any outcome, which is the very purpose of a prayer.“Ah-ha!” you might say. “The trick is that god gave mankind free will — that allows for the legitimacy of prayer.” But prayer cannot work in the case of free will, either. If we have the power to choose our own destiny, prayer has no role to play. If I pray to god for a certain outcome, just the act of praying is an admission that I do not determine my fate; I admit my fate is in the hands of god, that god can change the outcome of my life, making the notion of free will moot. The idea of free will is religion’s version of having your cake and eating it, too. You can have a god who already preordained everything, and you can pray for a different outcome anyway, and you have free will to change your destiny. The wishful

29

thinking that a pastry can be consumed without being depleted is no more viable than the notion that free will and prayer are compatible.An argument often provided to counter this line of reasoning says that god knows what every person will choose beforehand, but the person does not; the person is still making a choice. How oddly tautological. Whatever we choose, our choice is according to god’s plan because we chose it! But if god already knows what we will choose, already knows the outcome of every choice, that is not free will, only the cruel illusion of free will. The choice was already made at the beginning of time, meaning there never was any choice. Another common argument is that free will allowed humans to fall from god’s grace, without impugning god’s character. That is simply defining away the problem without solving anything. If god is all-powerful, he could have created a species of humans who chose to use the gift of free will only for good. That his creations chose to behave badly means that such behavior was either god’s original intent, or that god is not all-knowing.Perhaps a benevolent god created a world with evil, but he chose to do so for good reasons. He created evil but is not evil himself. Assuming this logic, some argue that evil and suffering are necessary in order to know god. Well, that is simply another example of solving the problem by defining it away, and ultimately contributes nothing. Since god is all-powerful, he could have just as easily designed the world such that suffering was not required to know him.Let’s look at a real case of evil, that of Slobodan Milošević and his choice of genocide: only three scenarios are possible. One, god knew beforehand the choice Milošević would make and did nothing to prevent the outcome; two, god knew beforehand but could do nothing to change the outcome; or three, god did not know what choice Milošević would make. From these three possibilities we must come to a conclusion that is irrefutable, undeniable, and logically immune to any counterargument. In a world in which evil and suffering exist, god is either all-powerful and is responsible for that evil and suffering, through design or neglect, or god is benevolent but not all-powerful. Nothing else is possible, other than the obvious conclusion that god does not exit. With evil in the world, an all-powerful god cannot be benevolent. Whether god’s power is diminished either as an original state of being or as a consequence of voluntarily relinquishing his power to human free will, the effect is the same. If god is benevolent and not culpable of evil, he has no control over evil. If god is not evil, he cannot alter our fate. No amount of twisted or convoluted logic can change that immutable conclusion. Saying “God works in mysterious ways” or “We are humble enough to admit that we will never understand god” just do not cut it.That conclusion yields an obvious and terminal problem for prayer. If your baby is seriously ill, you pray to god for her recovery. Why? If god is all-powerful, he would already know the fate of your baby, and your prayers would be for naught. Whether you prayed or not, your baby’s fate is already sealed, pre-ordained, for better or worse, by the all-powerful god. Plus, since an all-powerful god must be evil, since he is responsible for everything in the universe, including evil, he might take joy in your suffering, since he allowed so much grief to visit the human condition long before your child became ill.Alternatively, if god is benevolent, he is not responsible for the evil and suffering in the world, meaning he has diminished powers since forces exist in the universe for which he has no responsibility and no hand in their creation. You would be praying to a being without the ability to control human fate, rendering the prayer useless. If god has no control over evil, praying to him to stop evil and suffering makes no sense. Prayers to an all-powerful and evil god are futile; prayers to a benevolent god are useless. You might as well pray to the tooth fairy. At least with the tooth fairy you get a dollar under the pillow.

The flip-side of human free will is also important to examine; that is, does god himself have free will? If not, can god grant what he himself does not have? An all-powerful god is all-knowing, meaning god knows all of his future actions, and all of the choices he would make. Here is the rub: god could not change those choices, otherwise his earlier knowledge would have been wrong, meaning god would not be all-knowing! All-omniscient god therefore has no free will to choose actions, since all actions must be

30

preordained. God becomes an observer of his own omniscience since all knowledge of the future precludes any changes to that future. Any god with free will would have to be imperfect, and would by definition not be all-knowing.So an all-knowing god, who cannot possess free will, cannot grant something he himself does not have. But a bigger problem remains. Free will implies a future with no predestination. A god who knows all, about everything past, present, and future, could not create any free will that would prevent that knowledge of the future; the very act of creating free will would destroy the fact of omniscience.The notion that an all-powerful god granted humans free will is one of the most egregious examples of religion’s absurdity. But the situation becomes positively surreal when people believe that praying to an all-powerful god can alter the outcome of events according to the entreaties of the prayer. Holding three mutually exclusive ideas at the same time is a sign of insanity.

Further reading

https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-moral-responsibility

31

Issue 9: The extent to which philosophical, scientific and/or psychological views on libertarianism inevitably lead people to accept libertarianism

AO2 Lines of argument• Sartre’s philosophical libertarianism inevitably leads people to accept libertarianism because our experience of being free to choose is overwhelming and to accept that we are determined, does feel like play acting or ‘bad faith’.• Sirigu has offered the first significant piece of scientific evidence to support free will. Until now all the evidence had been on the side of determinism. Her evidence is consistent with our human experience and so is compelling.• Many psychological theories (and much of psychological practice) agrees with the insight of Rogers that we can reject our conditioning and grow into unique human beings.• Sartre’s philosophical libertarianism is not based on proof, but a kind of existentialist faith. Yet, there is plenty of evidence to support determinism.• Sirigu’s research only tells us where the event of choice takes place, it does not tell us that the choice we make is free. Just because she has not yet found a cause for why people choose A over B, does not mean there is no cause. The urge to act was still caused in Sirigu’s experiments and so we may still be determined.• Rogers offers no concrete explanation that has not already been challenged by determinism. Freud a so complex and ingrained that we will not know when our actions are conditioned by social factors.Key questions that may arise could be:1. Is the evidence for freedom in daily life (repeating mistakes of the past; being held captive by our family-society conditioning) weaker or stronger than the evidence for determinism?2. Does Sirigu or Roger’s work conclusively prove that we are free?3. What strengths or weaknesses are apparent in the idea that we are born a ‘blank slate’ and ‘make ourselves’?4. Does it take ‘faith’ to believe in Sartre’s position?5. What assumptions are made by libertarians?Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:1. We must be free as this is proven from science, psychology and philosophy on libertarianism: we make our own free choices and that we ultimately take responsibility for what we do.2. The evidence on human freedom from philosophy, science and psychology simply serves a desire we have to be called free when in fact all the strong evidence from these disciplines demonstrates overwhelmingly that we are caused. For example, nothing in Sirigu’s research suggests that we are free, only that we can identify where decisions are made in the brain.3. The fact that arguments can lead people to libertarianism does not mean that they are correct. After all, we can be attracted to ideas that have no correspondence to reality.

Specification Theme 4: Determinism and Free will - Determinism

32

Issue 10: The extent to which free moral agents should follow a normative ethicAO2 Lines of argument• Normative ethics are very useful if we have free will because they act as a moral guide for us as individuals who live within a society. If we are free, then our actions matter, and normative ethics show us the behaviour that will benefit us individually, socially or spiritually.• Without a normative ethic it would be impossible to praise or blame people for their actions because we would have no standard by which to judge them.• There is freedom within the limits of a normative system. There is a place in all normative ethics for thinking, calculating and considering. Within Natural Law, for example, one has to determine how human laws can best reflect the primary and secondary precepts. In Utilitarianism one needs to make calculations about pleasure and pain.• If we are truly free beings, then following the rules of a normative ethic places a limit on our freedom and responsibility (it is acting in ‘bad faith’) – we need to ‘make ourselves’ freely without any system.• Many deontological normative theories such as divine command theory or natural law require a rigid observance to rules that prevent us from acting freely. Rogers thinks that the best way to maturity is to break free of such ingrained restrictive habits and make decisions for ourselves.• Some normative theories such as utilitarianism or situation ethics are completely subjective in nature since you can justify any decision (despite, for example, utilitarianism’s claim to be scientific). We don’t fully recognize this because we want them to be objective! They can offer no real guidance; we must figure out our own path.

Key questions that may arise could be:1. What is the purpose of a normative ethic?2. Do some normative ethical theories require more human choice and calculations than other theories?3. Does our need for any ‘system’ mean that we prefer not to be free?4. How will an ethical theory interfere with our free choices (if at all)?5. Does choosing to follow an ethical system curtail our freedom – or make us more truly free?

Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:1. Normative ethics are vital for a free moral agent. It is impossible for us to take responsibility for our own actions unless we have some knowledge of what could be considered a good or bad act. Normative theories provide this information and then we are free to follow them or disregard them, but that decision is then our responsibility.2. The moment we say that a free moral agent ‘should’ follow an ethic, is the moment we ask them to voluntarily give up the free will we have been arguing for. As Sartre pointed out, then we do so without guidance at all. This is the only way the responsibility can be completely our own.3. Following a normative ethical theory can be compatible with human freedom. A choice to follow, or not, any system can show psychological maturity, though we cannot advocate that someone ‘should’ or ‘should not’ follow anything.

Spe

33

cification Theme 4: Determinism and Free will - DeterminismIssue 11: The degree to which free will makes the use of prayer irrelevantAO2 Lines of argument• Free will does not mean that we do not need help in life! Theologians like Pelagius and Arminius argue that we need a relationship with God to know his will for us – prayer develops this relationship.• Sin is still a powerful reality even though we have free will. Pelagius says that we need everything in our arsenal to overcome it – including asking God for help through prayer.• Free will means that we can choose to sin (as well as to do good). Even theologians who are against predestination believe it is possible to become so stuck in sin that we lose our freedom of choice. Prayer helps us to obtain forgiveness and strength from God when we have freely chosen the wrong path. This is consistent with free will.• We could argue that Rogers sees it as a mark of maturity if we can overcome our conditioning to achieve self-actualisation – prayer might help with this. Sirigu has identified the place in the brain where choices are made. If this is a mark of free will then it follows that the decision to pray is an exercise in free choice.• If grace is ‘irresistible’ (as Calvin proclaimed) or, if holiness is unobtainable apart from predestination (as Augustine taught), then it follows that no amount of prayer can bring us grace; prayer is therefore useless.• Prayer overrides free will: if God intervenes when we pray, then our free will is actually suspended. Prayer, then, is incompatible with free will. According to Sartre, we make our choices in abandonment and despair which means we cannot rely on God to guide us through prayer.• Prayer cheapens our choices! If we are truly free to make both good and bad choices, it is necessary for us to live with the results of those choices. Any prayer to ask God to intervene in human affairs causes us to lose our freedom. If I am going to be forgiven every time I sin, do I ever really sin? After all, Rogers does not say we need prayer to achieve self-actualisation.

Key questions that may arise could be:1. What roles does prayer play in a believer’s life?2. Does having free will mean that we never need outside help?3. Is prayer a way of avoiding responsibility?4. Do Christians want God to override their free choices – is that why they pray?5. If God is both completely free and omnipotent, is prayer useless?

Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:• Prayer is dangerous because it makes the believer passive and reveals a longing for‘God’ to determine human life.• Prayer is relevant because it is simply reaching out for another form of help as wemake choices. If prayer is freely chosen it is a sign of maturity.• Prayer is useless because free will is an illusion - an omnipotent, omniscient andpredetermining God has decided our fates.

Specification Theme 4: Determinism and Free will - Determinism

34

Issue 12: The degree to which beliefs about free will can be reconciled with beliefabout predestinationAO2 Lines of argument• The idea of foreknowledge can be invoked to explain the fact that Christianity calls us tomake choices and yet there are verses which suggested that things are predetermined.That is, God could foresee our actions (thus they are predetermined in time) yet not beresponsible for our performance of them. Hence, we are also free.• Scripture gives evidence for both free will and determinism. Since scripture is Godbreathed, it would be a matter of faith to believe both, even if it doesn’t seem clearlylogical to us.• Predestination is known only by God who is outside of time and space. In time andspace, we experience making choices. Thus, both are real: we experience the latter,though the former is also true.• If God has predestined humans, then there is no way logically that it makes sense to saywe are free. No decision that we make could make any difference to our future. Anydecision we make, ultimately is predetermined and thus illusory. Theological thoughtwould say, too, that reward and punishment make no sense if our actions have beendictated. Modern thought, too, sees predestination as incompatible with free will:thinkers such as Rogers and Sirigu in different ways emphasise the power of choice and,by implication, do not believe in predestination.• If God is omniscient AND omnipotent it is impossible for human beings to make adecision that he does not control and know about. A God with these qualities is bynecessity one who has predetermined our behaviour and thus our eventual outcome.This is not consistent with any concept of us being tabula rasa (a blank slate, free ofpredetermined goals).• Free will damages God’s absolute authority. It suggests that we can change God’s mindor affect God’s actions in some way. God as supreme authority over all things mustpredetermine our behaviour because he is in control and so we cannot be free as well.Key questions that may arise could be:1. Does ‘foreknowledge’ need to entail predestination or can an omniscient God refrain from predetermining human life?2. Could the Bible be giving mixed messages on this issue because the relationship between freewill and determinism is mystery or a paradox?3. Are humans truly ‘blank slates’ when they are born?4. What kind of God (in terms of character) is entailed by religious belief in Free will? What kind of God (in terms of character) is entailed by religious belief in determinism?5. For Sartre these two themes appear to be incompatible. Is this the case with Rogers and Sirigu?Possible conclusions to some arguments put forward could be:1. Freewill and predestination are ultimately compatible from God’s point of viewwhich is outside of space and time. Inside space and time we experience free will –but this is not the end of the story.2. Freewill and predestination are not compatible – research in psychology andphysiology shows that we are capable of great freedom.3. Ultimately it is a matter of faith as to which side of the question one comes downon – even if that faith has nothing to do with religion (as Sartre exemplifies).

35