DOCSLIB.ORG

Free Will from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free Will from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Free will From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. Factors of historical concern have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[2] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior. This issue has been widely debated throughout history, including not only whether free will exists but even how to define the concept. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been determinism of some variety (such as logical, nomological, or theological), so the most prominent common positions are named for the relation they hold to exist between free will and determinism. Those who define free will as freedom from determinism are called incompatibilists, as they hold determinism to be incompatible A simplified taxonomy of philosophical positions regarding with free will. The two main incompatibilist free will and determinism. positions are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible; and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible. Hard incompatibilism posits that indeterminism is also incompatible with free will, and thus either way free will is not possible. Those who define free will otherwise, without reference to determinism, are called compatibilists, because they hold determinism to be compatible with free will. Some compatibilists hold even that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, a process that requires some sense of how choices will turn out.[3][4] Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma.[5] Different compatibilists offer very different definitions of what free will even means, taking different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue; but because all agree that determinism is not the relevant concern, they are traditionally grouped together under this common name. Contents 1 In Western philosophy 1.1 Incompatibilism 1.1.1 Hard determinism 1.1.2 Metaphysical Libertarianism 1.1.3 Hard incompatibilism 1.1.4 Related philosophical issues 1.1.4 Related philosophical issues 1.2 Compatibilism 1.2.1 Free will as lack of physical restraint 1.2.2 Free will as a psychological state 1.2.3 Free will as unpredictability 1.2.4 Related philosophical issues 1.3 Other views 1.3.1 Two-stage models 1.3.2 Free will as an illusion 1.3.3 Free will as "moral imagination" 1.3.4 Free will as a pragmatically useful concept 2 Free will and views of causality 3 In science 3.1 Physics 3.2 Genetics 3.3 Neuroscience 3.4 Neurology and psychiatry 3.5 Determinism and emergent behavior 3.6 Experimental psychology 3.7 Believing in free will 3.7.1 What people believe 3.7.2 Effects of the belief itself 4 In Eastern philosophy 4.1 In Hindu philosophy 4.2 In Buddhist philosophy 4.3 In Islamic philosophy 5 In other theology 6 See also 7 References 8 External links In Western philosophy See also: Free will in antiquity Humans have a strong sense of freedom, which leads us to believe that we have free will.[6][7] An intuitive feeling of free will could, however, be mistaken.[8][9] It is difficult to reconcile the intuitive evidence that conscious decisions are causally effective with the scientific view that the physical world can be explained to operate perfectly by physical law.[10] This problem arises when either causal closure or physical determinism (nomological determinism) is asserted. With causal closure, no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain, and with physical determinism, the future is determined entirely by preceding events (cause and effect). The need to reconcile freedom of will with a deterministic universe is known as the problem of free will or sometimes referred to as the dilemma of determinism.[11] This dilemma leads to a moral dilemma as well: How are we to assign responsibility for our actions if they are caused entirely by past events?[12][13] The connection between autonomy (self-determination) and the ideal of developing one’s own individual self was adopted within the psychology of Abraham Maslow, who saw the goal of human development as “self-actualization”. For Maslow, the most developed person is the most autonomous, and autonomy is explicitly associated with not being dependent on others.[14] For others, true free will must involve self- realization, which is a maturing of the self that allows the dissolution of one's counter-productive obsessive, internal pre-occupations and assumptions, including unrecognized peer-pressure and the like,— all of which reduce our actual choices, thus reduce our freedom.[15] Classical compatibilists have addressed the dilemma of free will by arguing that free will holds as long as we are not externally constrained or coerced.[16] Modern compatibilists make a distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action, that is, separating freedom of choice from the freedom to enact it.[17] Given that humans all experience a sense of free will, some modern compatibilists think it is necessary to accommodate this intuition.[18][19] For example, some modern compatibilists in psychology have tried to revive traditionally accepted struggles of free will with the formation of character.[20] Compatibilist free will has also been attributed to our natural sense of agency, where one must believe they are an agent in order to function and develop a theory of mind.[21][22] A different approach to the dilemma is that of incompatibilists, namely, that if the world is deterministic then, our feeling that we are free to choose an action is simply an illusion. Fundamental debate continues over whether the physical universe is in fact deterministic. Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation.[23] Yet even with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against the feasibility of incompatibilist free will in that it is difficult to assign Origination (responsibility for "free" indeterministic choices). Despite our attempts to understand nature, a complete understanding of reality remains open to philosophical speculation. For example, the laws of physics (deterministic or not) have yet to resolve the hard problem of consciousness:[24] "Solving the hard problem of consciousness involves determining how physiological processes such as ions flowing across the nerve membrane cause us to have experiences."[25] According to some, "Intricately related to the hard problem of consciousness, the hard problem of free will represents the core problem of conscious free will: Does conscious volition impact the material world?"[8] Although incompatibilist metaphysical libertarianism generally represents the bulk of non-materialist constructions,[8] including the popular claim of being able to consciously veto an action or competing desire,[26][27] compatibilist theories have been developed based on a form of identity dualism in which "the experience of conscious free will is the first-person perspective of the neural correlates of choosing."[8] It is however apparent that, even disregarding the hard problem of consciousness, "consciousness plays a far smaller role in human life than Western culture has tended to believe."[28] Free will here is predominately treated with respect to physical determinism in the strict sense of nomological determinism, although other forms of determinism are also relevant to free will.[29] For example, logical and theological determinism challenge metaphysical libertarianism with ideas of destiny and fate, and biological, cultural and psychological determinism feed the development of compatibilist models. Separate classes of compatibilism and incompatibilism may even be formed to represent these.[30] Below are the classic arguments bearing upon the dilemma and its underpinnings. Incompatibilism Main article: Incompatibilism Incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are logically incompatible, and that the major question regarding whether or not people have free will is thus whether or not their actions are determined. "Hard determinists", such as Martin Luther and d'Holbach, are those incompatibilists who accept determinism and reject free will. In contrast, "metaphysical libertarians", such as Thomas Reid, Peter van Inwagen, and Robert Kane, are those incompatibilists who accept free will and deny determinism, holding the view that some form of indeterminism is true.[31] Another view is that of hard incompatibilists, which state that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism.[32] Traditional arguments for incompatibilism are based on an "intuition pump": if a person is like other mechanical things that are determined in their behavior such as a wind-up toy, a billiard ball, a puppet, or a robot, then people must not have free will.[31][33] This argument has been rejected by compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett on the grounds that, even if humans have something in common with these things, it remains possible and plausible that we are different from such objects in important ways.[34] Another argument for incompatibilism is that of the "causal chain." Incompatibilism is key to the idealist theory of free will.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophical Issues with Existence of God
    Philosophical issues with existence of God www.rationalhumor.com R.N Session Schedule Session # Date / Time Session Name Brief Description 1 Jan 24th – Sunday General Concepts & History of Understand what are the various belief systems. 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy Historical Review of how Philosophy evolved 2 Jan 31stth – Sunday General Philosophy an Introduction General Introduction into what is the branch of 2:00pm to 4:00pm Philosophy and then specifically review religious philosophy 3 Feb 7th – Sunday Philosophyof Religion How philosophyis handled and presented in the 2:00pm to 4:00pm various MAJOR religions – Abrahaministic & Eastern 4 Feb 14th – Sunday Logic & Logical Fallacies Understanding Logic and understanding how to 2:00pm to 4:00pm identify fallacies in arguments 5 Feb 21st – Sunday Arguments for the Existence of God Theological arguments; Ontological Arguments and 2:00pm to 4:00pm Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God 6 Feb 28th – Sunday Philosophical issues with existence of Philosophical issues with existence – Boeing 747 2:00pm to 4:00pm God Gambit; Russell’s TeaPot; Morality etc. 7 March 7th - Sunday Free Will and Theodicy Theproblem of Free Will with respect to 2:00pm to 4:00pm Omnipotence; Omniscience and Omni benevolence. Problem with Evil 8 March 14th – Sunday Putting it all together Summarizingkey concepts 2:00pm to 4:00pm www.rationalhumor.com R.N Background Information a) Free Will - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAqFbiBDb _c b) Eastern Religions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3w5ZUs7 ayI c) Belief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvV uuE Arguments against the existence of God Type Empirical Arguments • Inconsistent revelations from various faiths.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria Lee W. Sytsma Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Sytsma, Lee W., "Reconciling Universal Salvation and Freedom of Choice in Origen of Alexandria" (2018). Dissertations (1934 -). 769. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/769 RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA by Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2018 ABSTRACT RECONCILING UNIVERSAL SALVATION AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA Lee W. Sytsma, B.A., M.T.S. Marquette University, 2018 Origen has traditionally been famous for his universalism, but many scholars now express doubt that Origen believed in a universal and permanent apocatastasis. This is because many scholars are convinced that Origen’s teaching on moral autonomy (or freedom of choice) is logically incompatible with the notion that God foreordains every soul’s future destiny. Those few scholars who do argue that Origen believed in both moral autonomy and universal salvation either do not know how to reconcile these two views in Origen’s theology, or their proposed “solutions” are not convincing. In this dissertation I make two preliminary arguments which allow the question of logical compatibility to come into focus.
    [Show full text]
  • John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number
    John Ford Wilson UNISA Student Number: 4593-816-4 275 Elkins Lake Huntsville, Texas 77340 USA 1-713-202-8953 [email protected] Approved Thesis Title: Examination of the Work of John C. Polkinghorne Praeparatio Evangelii Supervisor: Professor William J. Abraham Co-supervisor: Professor Vaughn Willard Baker Date of Submission of Thesis: i Curriculum Vitae John Ford Wilson Curriculum Vitae EDUCATION Ph.D. Physics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas M.S. Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pa. M.S. Theological Studies, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University M.S. Industrial Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Tennessee. EXPERIENCE Lecturer, Department of Physics, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, Texas Member The Institute on Religion in an Age of Science Fellow, Center of Faith and Culture at University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Adjunct Faculty for Institute for Spirituality and Health, Houston, Texas Associate Pastor for Evangelism, St. Luke’s United Methodist Church; Houston, Texas Ordained Deacon in Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church Research Assistant Professor of Physics and Director of Educational Outreach, University of Houston; Houston, Texas Professor of Physics Houston Community College System; Houston, Texas Adjunct Professor of Physics University of St. Thomas; Houston, Texas Wilson and Associates: Self-employed as consultant in Houston, Tx. for marketing, business and strategic planning, and investment management. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. Marketing Division, DuPont Textile Fibers Dept: Technical Service Manager for Reemay® and Typar®. Marketing Manager for Reemay®, Typar®, and Sontara®. Strategy and Development Assistant for Nomex® fiber and paper; responsible for business plans, earnings, and forecast.
    [Show full text]
  • Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot
    Predeterminism and Moral Agency in the Hodayot Carol A. Newsom 1 Introduction For reasons that are not yet entirely clear, sharp disagreements about pre- determinism and free will became a significant feature of Jewish theological stances in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Josephus provides the most ex- plicit consideration of these issues in ancient Jewish sources, as he attempts to distinguish the positions of the three major Jewish sects with respect to the philosophical category of “fate” (εἱμαρμένη). Josephus identifies the position of the Essenes as believing strongly in fate, to the apparent exclusion of free will (Ant. 13.172). Similarly, modern scholarly treatments of the Qumran yaḥad have acknowledged the very strong predeterminist element in their thinking, attested in a variety of sectarian or closely related texts.1 At the same time, there has been a degree of perplexity as to what to do with the obviously volun- tarist statements and assumptions that are present in these same documents. A variety of suggestions have been made, mostly to the effect that the sectar- ians were inconsistent or not fully systematic in their beliefs.2 This may in- deed be the case, though Jonathan Klawans argues that, properly understood, all deterministic systems are consistent with voluntarism in a rather minimal 1 I take the Qumran yaḥad movement to be Essene, though I consider it possible that the term “Essene” may also have referred to groups not formally part of the yaḥad. For examinations of the phenomenon of predestination in Qumran sectarian literature and closely related texts, see J. Licht, “The Concept of Free Will in the Writings of the Sect of the Judean Desert,” in Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Lectures Delivered at the Third Annual Conference (1957) in Memory of E.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Quarterly
    THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY VOL. 10 No. 39 APRIL 1960 GOD AND EVIL A. THE PROBLEM STATED: Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other. God cannot be both all-powerful and perfectly good if evil is real. This contradiction is well set out in its detail by Mackie in his discussion of the problem.l In his discussion Mackie seeks to show that this contradiction cannot be resolved in terms of man's free will. In arguing in this way Mackie neglects a large number of important points, and concedes far too much to the theist. He implicitly allows that whilst physical evil creates a problem, this problem is reducible to the problem of moral evil and that therefore the satisfactoriness of solutions of the problem of evil turns on the compatibility of free will and absolute goodness. In fact physical evils create a number of distinct problems which are not reducible to the problem of moral evil. Further, the proposed solu- tion of the problem of moral evil in terms of free will renders the attempt to account for physical evil in terms of moral good, and the attempt thereby to reduce the problem of evil to the problem of moral evil, completely un- tenable. Moreover, the account of moral evil in terms of free will breaks down on more obvious and less disputable grounds than those indicated by Mackie. Moral evil can be shown to remain a problem whether or not free will is compatible with absolute goodness.
    [Show full text]
  • Nöroetik Prensipler 5
    Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Sinir Bilim Dergisi No. 2018/1-2 B ö l ü m Nöroetik Prensipler 5 Etik ilkeler konusunda öneriler Etiksel kavramları daha somut boyuta getirerek prensiplerin ilkeleştirilmesi hedeflenmiştir. öroetik konusunda etiksel anlamda ilkeleşme, tüm insanı ve insanlığı kapsadığı için, tüm etik ilkeleri bünyesinde toplamaktadır. N Nöroetik olarak konunun yeniden gözden geçirilmesi ve ilkeleştirilmesi yukarıdaki kapsam altında gerekli olmadığı anlaşılacaktır. Ancak, olayın özetlenmesi açısından ilkelerde toparlamanın mümkün olabileceği varsayılmaktadır. Her bir yaklaşımda belirli esasların oluşturulması önceliklidir. Bir konu ele alınırken, o konuda bilgi sorgulaması öncesinde, belirli bir planın yapılması gerekir. Planlama olmadan rastgele alınan bilgiler, belirli bir bilgi kirliliğine neden olabilecektir. Birbiri ile çelişen durumlar ve bilgileri çözmek imkansızlaştığı gibi, belirli sorunlara da neden olabilecektir. Bu açıdan nöroetik kavramı üzerinde değinilmeden önce, bu konuda temel yaklaşımlar, belirli bir felsefe içinde ele alınmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Öncelikle konuyu ele alma biçimi, olayı yrumlama ve algılama düzeyi ortaya konulmalıdır. Bu amaçla nöroetik konusunda bir genel yaklaşım esasları oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır. Aşağıda bir ilkeleme çalışması görülecektir. Nöroetik Prensipler/İlkeler TANIMLAMALAR Etik Tıp Bilimi temelde insanı birey olarak ele almakta ve onun haklarının öncelikli olduğu ve otonomisinin her türlü durumda korunmasının hukuksal açıdan da ilke olarak ele alınması gerektiğinin bilincindedir. Sayfa. 252 Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Sinir Bilim Dergisi No. 2018/1-2 Birey, insan olmanın gerektiği modelinde, ruhsal, sosyal ve kültürel anlamda da toplumsal bir kişiliği olduğunun kavramı olarak da algılanmalıdır. Hekimlik mesleği, bireyin özerkliği ve kendi haklarını belirleme çerçevesinde, tıp biliminin uygulanması yanında sanatsal ve felsefe bilimler anlamında da bir bütünlüğü gerekli kılmaktadır. Tüm diğer özellikler hukuksal esaslar yanında etik ilkeler boyutunda da olmalıdır.
    [Show full text]
  • This Note Is Brought to You by Fabreads.Org Go to Fabreads.Org/Oau-Notes for More Notes
    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? ETYMOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY Philosophy etymological comes from two Greek words “PHILEU” and “SOPHIA” which means “LOVE” and “WISDOM” respectively. • It is categorically termed “LOVE FOR WISDOM”. If philosophy means Love for Wisdom then philosophers are “LOVERS OF WISDOM” Philosophy as love for wisdom doesn’t mean that philosophy is wisdom or philosophers are custodians of wisdom. All it says is that philosophy is that philosophy is a discipline that urges us to be in constant search for wisdom. We should be able to distinguish wisdom from collection of mere opinions, dogmas opinions, articles of faith or unquestioned positions or views i.e. all received opinions must be examined in the process of searching for wisdom. Philosophy is a critical discipline that urges us to question all received opinions by criticizing examine in order to get to the object of love, which is wisdom. Critical here means being able to subject all opinions to critical observation in order to have access to the alternative that is supported by the superior arguments. For this reason of criticality, philosophy was seen as a “GADFLY” (The nauseating sound mosquitoes, housefly and other insects of the likes make) a discipline that constantly keeps us on our toes in a way such that we are not susceptible or don’t fall easily into accepting unquestioned & indefensible positions. This means we must always make attempt to penetrate through distinct opinion or perspective. Philosophy is like sciences, they are both (philosophy and sciences) interested in carrying out systematic research in to the nature of things.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell
    The two Bell's theorems of John Bell Author Wiseman, HM Published 2014 Journal Title Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical Version Accepted Manuscript (AM) DOI https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424001 Copyright Statement © 2014 Institute of Physics Publishing. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/65174 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au The Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell H. M. Wiseman Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (Australian Research Council), Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia Abstract. Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of “Bell’s theorem” arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976. His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism. His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality. This is contrary to Bell’s own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name). While there are other forms of Bell’s theorems — which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, “fragile locality”, and EPR-completeness — I maintain that Bell’s two versions are the essential ones. Although the two Bell’s theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will: Hail and Farewell
    Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism © 2019 The American Humanist Association volume 27 (2019), article 6, 98-124. ISSN 1522-7340 (print), 2052-8388 (online) Free Will: Hail and Farewell James A. Montanye Independent scholar, Falls Church, VA [email protected] This essay traces the evolution of the free will concept, from Plato to the present. It examines interpretations offered by theologians, political philosophers, philosophers of mind and consciousness, neuroscientists, evolutionists, legal scholars, and economists. The essay illuminates the concept’s instrumental use as an artifice for manipulating behavioral adaptations to the scarcity of economic resources. Macroeconomic and ngram data reveal these manipulations as having locked Western civilization into centuries of social and economic stagnation. Keywords: free will, consciousness, economics, prosperity, scarcity, competition, neuroscience, compatibilism, incompatibilism, ngrams “The persistence of the traditional free will problem in philosophy seems to me something of a scandal. After all these centuries of writing about free will, it does not seem to me that we have made very much progress.” John Searle (2007, 37) “A flood of ink has been spilled, especially in the modern era, on how to understand the concept of being able to do otherwise.” Timothy O’Connor (2016) “...the whole arcane issue about free will is a miscast concept, based on social and psychological beliefs held at particular times in human history that have not been borne out and/or are at odds with modern scientific knowledge about the nature of our universe.” Michael Gazzaniga (2011, 219) “...if we no longer entertain the luxury of a belief in the ‘magic of the soul,’ then there is little else to offer in support of the concept of free will.” Anthony Cashmore (2010, 1) [98] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesian Free Will, the Two-Stage Model of William James ______
    JAMESIAN FREE WILL, THE TWO-STAGE MODEL OF WILLIAM JAMES __________________________________________________________________ BOB DOYLE ABSTRACT Research into two-stage models of “free will” – first “free” random generation of alternative possibilities, followed by “willed” adequately determined decisions consistent with character, values, and desires – suggests that William James was in 1884 the first of a dozen philosophers and scientists to propose such a two-stage model for free will. We review the later work to establish James’s priority. By limiting chance to the generation of alternative possibilities, James was the first to overcome the standard two-part argument against free will, i.e., that the will is either determined or random. James gave it elements of both, to establish freedom but preserve responsibility. We show that James was influenced by Darwin’s model of natural selection, as were most recent thinkers with a two-stage model. In view of James’s famous decision to make his first act of freedom a choice to believe that his will is free, it is most fitting to celebrate James’s priority in the free will debates by naming the two-stage model – first chance, then choice -“Jamesian” free will. THE DECLINE OF DETERMINISM In the nineteenth century, according to historians of science1 and philosopher Ian Hacking2, there was a “rise in statistical thinking” and an “erosion of determinism.” The strict physical determinism implied by Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics was giving way to the statistical mechanics of physicists James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, who assumed that gases were composed of atoms and molecules moving at random and following statistical laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Tony Gray, "Hell in the Twentieth Century,"
    Tony Gray, “Hell in the Twentieth Century,” Epworth Review 23.1 (Jan. 1996): 28-32. Hell in the Twentieth Century Tony Gray [p.28] Many would argue that although twentieth century society no longer believes in a literal hell as a place of eternal retribution, this generation and those before it have seen enough of hell on earth to more than make up for this unbelief. Innocent suffering continues on a massive scale. Millions have perished at the hands of cruel tyrants. Is this not what we mean when we speak of ‘hell’? Yet it is the very fact that much of the suffering we witness is thoroughly unjust which has led some to reconsider that terrible idea, the doctrine of hell. Perhaps it was considerations such as these that influenced the ancients to develop their view of the afterlife in the first place.1 As the twentieth century draws to a close, maybe these thoughts will once again bring hell back into the public consciousness. Ghost, a recent and hugely successful hit at the box-office, was one in a line of many Hollywood films that depicted a belief, or perhaps more correctly a desire, which seeks the execution of justice. When the evil character in the film has finally been tracked down and accidentally killed, we see his shadow descend beneath the ground, dragged down by darkened spirits. Punishment is coming to the one who chose evil. Although such a film may not be a good starting point for a theology of hell, it is perhaps indicative of the revival that hell is having in some areas today.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheist Symbols Atheism
    Atheist symbols Atheism What is it? Atheism Defined • Atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] -noun : a lack of belief in a god or gods. • Atheism deals with belief, not knowledge. • Atheism makes no positive claims. • Percent of Atheists in the U.S. population. Degrees of Atheism • Strong Atheists- I believe that No gods exists • Weak Atheists- I have no belief in any gods • Anti-theist- I am opposed to all religions. • Agnostic- Used by many to mean a “fence- sitter” or undecided. Misconceptions about Atheism • Atheism is a religion. • Atheists don’t believe in anything. • Atheists hate god. • Atheists worship the devil. • Atheists are unhappy angry people. • Atheists just need to hear the “good news”. • Atheists that have lost their faith were never true believers. • Atheists have no morals • Atheists want to take away peoples faith. • Atheism leads to other societal woes. • Atheists don’t exist. History of Atheism • Earliest form of the Word recorded in 600 B.C. in ancient Greek. • 1566 first recorded use of Atheist. (French) • Late 1700’s was first used as a self description. • In the 1840’s the first major self-avowed American Atheists were Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Both were active in women’s Suffrage. • 1885 -Col. Robert Ingersoll was elected the president of the American Secular Union. This was the first organized secular organization in America. Mark Twain was one of the first members. History of Atheism • 1859-Darwin published his world changing book “On the origin of species” • Mid-1800’s to the first world war, Atheist and Secularist’s were involved in many social issues: -Abortion, slavery, contraception, sufferage • 1925- Scope’s Monkey trail was the beginning of the culture wars in America.
    [Show full text]