free will Flashcards
1
Q
free will (12)
A
(1) free will (general)
(2) pelagius
(3) support/criticism for pelagius
(4) arminius
(5) article 5
(6) varying views (wesley, luther, erasmus, calvin/’tulip’, wes/’acura’, arminianism/’parts’)
(7) libertarianism (via phil, science, psych)
(8) lib/FW vs determinism
(9) strengths/weaknesses + scholars
(10) jean-paul sartre
(11) FW and science
(12) carl rogers (+criticism)
(13) strengths/weaknesses of rogers:
2
Q
(1) free will (general)
A
- opposite of predestination, responsible for own post-mortem fate (pelagius, arminius, irenaeus)
- FW vital/G-given/only ‘true’ relationship
- irenaeus; ‘soul making theodicy’; imago dei; completion via character development, G> perfection attained in imperfect world; G at ‘epistemic distance’/day of judgement (purgatory, heaven, hell)
3
Q
(2) pelagius
A
- 354CE; ‘in defence of free will’, monk; sanctification over justification/soteriology
- FW necessary for good actions to have value (saint justin)
- original sin modified human nature, not corrupted; humanity inherits free-will, not sin
- G wouldn’t create commandments that humans couldn’t follow; ‘good works’/G guides within FW contraints; atonement via Christ’s sacrifice (e.g. Matthew 25, sheep/goats parable)
4
Q
(3) support/criticism for pelagius
A
- C: too much emphasis on FW/’hack’ heaven repenting on last day; rejects OS, makes Christ’s sacrifice redundant; based on self-determination (arth, augustine, bishop simms, calvin)
- S: for FW/choice; universal/accessible; opportunity for atonement; emphasises ‘good works’ (cole, gray)
5
Q
(4) arminius
A
- 1560CE, theologian; (5)
- (1) G’s grace only can remove sin (via Holy Spirit)+prevenient grace; (2) denied predestination; (3) tainted by The Fall, inclined to sin, FW compromised; (4) prevenient grace = capacity for G’s guidance; (5) elect, +others can be saved by degree of faith (HP only balances sin impulse)
6
Q
(5) article 5
A
- ‘five articles of remonstrance’; condemned heresy by Reformed Churches (1618)
- (1) believers in jesus are saved; (2) salvation available via jesus’ sacrifice; (3) repentance for salvation; (4) grace is G’s gift, to be rejected/accepted; (5) those with faith in christ can resist evil
7
Q
(6) varying views
A
- (wesley, luther, erasmus, calvin/’tulip’, wes/’acura’, arminianism/’parts’)
- calvin; TULIP
- wes; ACURA
- arminius; PARTS
8
Q
(7) libertarianism (via phil, science, psych)
A
- ‘incompatibalism’/’causa sui’; ‘agency theory’/morally self-responsible, within constraints of natural law
- rejects det/pred; cause/affect doesn’t impact human choice; moral actions result of individual character
9
Q
(8) lib/FW vs determinism
A
- rejecting FW is rejecting reality; experience/intention proves FW (campbell, inwagen)
- christian view: G omnip, allowed FW; bible demonstrates virtue; free in constraints of G’s will
10
Q
(9) strengths/weaknesses + scholars
A
- S: opportunity to be saved; give choice; emphasis on impact of good/bad actions; ethics is a foundation of human culture
- W: lacks empiricism/isn’t quantifiable; determined via socialisation/biology; belief in freedom isn’t true freedom (hume, spinoza, kant, aquinas, vardy)
11
Q
(10) jean-paul sartre
A
- 1905, AT philosopher; FW supporter; consciousness/’neant’, suffering/death prove FW
- humanity condemned to freedom; pour-soi (being for itself)/etre-en-soi (being in itself); FW but restricted by natural laws/’the gap’ (reason)
- waiter/play acting; mauvaise foi/self-deception; negative ecstasy/inner conflict
12
Q
(11) FW and science
A
- ‘uncertainty principle’/heisenberg; chaos theory; sirigu/jolts suggest intentions can be simulated (haggard, koch, yong, maslow)
13
Q
(12) carl rogers (+criticism)
A
- 1902; humanistic psychologist; client-centred therapy/self-reflection; freud rejector; bio isn’t deterministic/supports FW/self-determination (‘actualising tendency’)
- ‘experiencing beings’/external conditioning; 3 forms (genuineness, acceptance, empathy); sully actualise vs conditional positive regard
- inherent ‘actualising tendency’; if done, break ‘chains’ of FW; ideal vs real self (cong/incong, maladjustment)
14
Q
(13) strengths/weaknesses of rogers:
A
- W: lacks empiricism; subjective, doesn’t clarify (augustine, arminius)
- S: swinburn/toy world; mackie/triad; FW can coexist with religion; FW facilitates value of life; FW facilitates salvation/atonement (howard, ross, lemmy, hick)
