Against Fatalism in Western Europe

people can make their own decisions, independent of the religious leaders, provided reason is invoked in

In his essay, “Freedom and Resentment”, Strawson aims to prove human freedom by evaluating two opposing viewpoints, the optimist and the pessimist toward determinism, and discrediting various ideas within each argument in order to arrive at his own conclusion. It is necessary to understand that the basis of Strawson’s argument focuses on human psychology. He believes that innate tendencies engrained in our dispositions develop our subjective reactive attitudes and we are too attached to interpersonal relationships to consider changing all attitudes to objective ones. While I find Strawson’s points to be relevant and compelling, there are flaws in his argument that cannot be ignored.

Inwagen starts his article by providing the reader with definitions to the main topics that he will be discussing and arguing for or against. Although inwagen does not provide the reader with a clear definition of freewill, the definition can be taken from the way he presents his scenarios and arguments. After analysing Inwagen’s article, what In my prespective

In this philosophical paper I will be referencing the works of Blaise Pascal’s, “The Wager”, Simon Blackburn’s “Pascal’s Wager”, and Linda Zagzebski’s “Pascal’s Wager: An Assessment”. I will be comparing Pascal’s beliefs with the beliefs of Blackburn and Zagzebski as they discuss different ways to believe in God and if believing in God is a gamble on ones after-life, or simply just religious preference. I will discuss the works of these three philosophers and explain how their works may correlate and differ. The question presented in Pascal’s work is still relevant, being over 350 years old, and still left unsolved. Even though times are much different and technology is much more advanced than when Pascal presented this work in the mid 1600’s.

religion insofar as the merits are concerned” ( Moran 95 ). This conflict was the major

Journalist John Tierney, in his article, “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s the Only Choice,” explores the notion of free will and exhibits how belief or disbelief in free will affects an individual’s life. By posing a hypothetical situation through rhetorical questions, incorporating experimental research, and using accusatory diction towards the opposing perspective, Tierney conveys his perception that a regard for free will allows for individuals to gain a greater sense of morality and ambition, even if the notion of free will is still disputed.

In this essay I will be discussing the ‘Many Gods Objection’ as a criticism to the claim: ‘Prudence demands that rational agents join, and participate in, a religion.’ I will first focus for a little while on Pascal’s Wager which, I feel, best demonstrates why people see the title claim as a true one. I will continue by analysing the ‘Many Gods Objection’ and why it is a good argument against the title claim, before concluding that the title claim is not strong enough to hold up against the ‘Many Gods Objection’.

Western Legal Tradition, as coined by Harold J. Berman, is the explicit set of legal aggregates, principles, and theories that are related to the idiosyncratic, reputable culture of Western Europe, envisioned as an articulate tradition, capable of maturing over an extended period. Dating back to the 11th century in Western Europe, legality began maturing exponentially, in terms of legal and religious thought through the outlet of revolutions and religious movements that impacted them, such as the religiously-inspired Papal Revolution of the 11th and 13th century. Individuals studying this philosophy today have come to question whether the three factors – religion, law, and the movements/insurgencies– were equally vital, fundamental, and collaborating

Pike’s article shows a good argument against the idea of human free will. Pike makes his arguments by analyzing ideas from Boethius. Pike agrees that “if one collected together just the right assumptions and principals regarding God’s knowledge, one could derive the conclusion that if God exists, no human action is voluntary.” (Pike)

As a closure to this and in light of how great philosophies leave with prominent questions in mind, James elaborated an example to his lecture attendees of a chance and choice alternative, which until today is considered one of the greatest arguments against libertarian free will (Doyle, 2010);

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

Harry Frankfurt debates the issue concerning moral responsibility without the presence of free will. However, his hypothetical demonstration cannot exist, therefore his account does not adequately address the problem with free will.

From 1517 to now, Erasmus and Luther’s relationship has been one of “great interest and speculation to men of letters, theologians, bishops, and princes” (Packer and Johnston 25). The two men represent two different theological and ethical outlooks, in terms of discussing God and man (Rupp 13). According to Rupp, Erasmus’ views originate from a more traditional, scholastic perspective, while Luther’s do not (14). Erasmus argues against the idea that man plays no active part in securing his own salvation, because he feels that every man at least has the freedom of choice (15). Luther, on the other hand, argues that the human being has no will of its own. In his eyes, freedom belongs to God and God alone (16). How may we understand the conflict between Erasmus and Luther? In this paper, I argue that Luther and Erasmus could not, and still do not, agree about the role of Christian faith and the freedom of Christians making their own decisions because in reality, neither man knows to what extent an individual can be certain about, in one specific topic. They disagree on the location of where the authority of truth actually lies. They disagree first in their viewpoints, second in their actions, and third in their writings. The arguments in their works intended to admonish one another, which consequently leads to the birth of their continuing argument over the freedom of the will.

The first article, “Predicting moral sentiment towards physician-assisted suicide: The role of religion, conservatism, authoritarianism, and Big Five personality,” studies, as mentioned in the title, the effect religion and religiosity, political beliefs, authoritarianism, and the big five personality traits have on people's attitude towards doctor assisted suicide. The big five personality traits are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism, and openness. The theoretical framework used in this article was based on previous research that identified psychosocial predictors of feelings towards physician assisted suicide. They believe that religiosity correlates to negative opinions on physician assisted

I defend the uniqueness and irreducibility of religious forms of life from rationalistic criticisms. I argue that such a defense of religion affirms the fact of incommensurability between differing forms of life. Put differently, such a defense tacitly affirms ineradicable pluralism as well as cultural diversity. I contend that the defender of religion who argues from the incommensurability of this form of life must also give up all traces of "worldview exclusivism," the dogmatic claim to possess the one truth about the world. Finally, I argue that if we are to move into a future of peace, we must acknowledge that various forms of life are lived on a level playing field. That is, all forms have important contributions to make, and none