Philosopher Louis P. Pojman (PhD Edit)

National Geographic: San Buenaventura, Mexico

Hard Versus Soft Determinism

Louis P. Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism,[1] and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism.[2]  Within determinism or hard determinism, God[3] causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions,[4] while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily.[5] The human will would be the secondary cause in human decisions.  Persons would still therefore be morally responsible for moral actions.  Pojman (1996: 596). 

Pragmatism

Pojman defines pragmatism as the theory that interprets the meaning of a statement in terms of practical consequences.[6]  Some judge the truthfulness or falseness of a statement/proposition on whether or not it is pragmatic.[7]  Gene Edward Veith, Jr., (1994) states ‘what works and what’s[8] practical’ is pragmatism.[9] 

Cosmology

Whale writes that cosmology is looking at the cosmos and visible universe from a theistic perspective denying that it is self-explanatory.[10]  Pojman mentions that theistic versions of cosmology deduce something outside of the universe is required to explain its existence.[11]  Paul Edwards (1973) explains cosmology reasons that all things come into being through other things,[12] and since a causal series of events cannot go back in infinity, there must be a first cause.[13]  Thomas Aquinas is famous for discussing The Five Ways and his cosmological argument within Summa Theologica.[14]  Plantinga reasons that aspects of Aquinas’ presentation[15] are reasonable, but overall the argument is unsuccessful.[16]  I reason this does not render all arguments for first cause unsuccessful, but Plantinga points out difficulties with Aquinas’ approach,[17] which is perhaps too extensive.[18] Edwards comments[19] would adequately explain a more modest and reasonable idea concerning first cause.  

AQUINAS, THOMAS (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973)(eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

SCHELLING, F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago.

VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994) Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books. 

---

[1] Pojman (1996: 596).

[2] Pojman (1996: 596).

[3] This could be an outside force, as well, that is not God.  An atheist may be a compatibilist and/or an incompatibilist, or one could hold to hard determinism.  Schelling suggests that ‘absolute causal power in one being leaves nothing but unconditional passivity for all the rest.’  Schelling (1845)(1936: 11).  This would be a difficulty with accepting hard determinism.

[4] Pojman (1996: 596). 

[5] Pojman (1996: 596). 

[6] Pojman (1996: 598).

[7] Pojman (1996: 598).

[8] Veith uses a contraction, which I do not normally use in academic work.

[9] Veith (1994: 83). 

[10] Whale (1958: 22).

[11] Pojman (1996: 37).

[12] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[13] Edwards (1973: 377-378).

[14] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920) Summa Theologica, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, London, Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

[15] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[16] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).

[17] Aquinas, Thomas (1261)(1920).

[18] Aquinas’ presentation although classic and important, is very speculative and Plantinga has disagreements with his overall work. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 80).  Geivett reasons Plantinga is too negative concerning natural theology as possibly working.  Geivett (1993: 59-60). 

[19] Edwards (1973: 377-378).