 |
| Windsor Walkway, London: trekearth |
Philosopher Simon Blackburn's work has been very helpful within my academic career, especially in regard to philosophy and philosophy of religion.
His Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has provided many educational entries.
Professor Blackburn explains philosophical entries in a rational and clear manner and yet with the intellectual depth required. This has allowed me to interact with his text and learn from it, even with various amounts of agreement and disagreement on theological and philosophical issues.
Wikipedia: Simon Blackburn
Cited
'As a patron of the British Humanist Association, he has argued against the existence of God, preferring to describe himself as an "infidel" rather than an "atheist".[5] He was one of 55 public figures to sign an open letter published in The Guardian in September 2010, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK,[6] and has argued that religionists should have less influence in political affairs.[5] At the same time, he has also argued, in a televised debate, against the claim of "New Atheist" Sam Harris that morality can be derived from science.[7]'
Professor Blackburn's unique personal website
Simon Blackburn
---
From my PhD thesis
I will document the more important thesis entries in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.
Philosopher Simon Blackburn (PhD Edit)
Theodicy
Simon Blackburn (1996) writes that theodicy is the part of theology concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while suffering and evil exists in the world. Blackburn (1996: 375).
A reasonable definition of theodicy is the explanation of how the infinite, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within his creation where the problem of evil exists.
The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn (1996: 193).
God is considered infinite and his creation finite and therefore limited.
Humanist Simon Blackburn, from a non-theistic critical perspective, reasons there are difficulties with the concept of an omnipotent God not being able to make a stone so heavy he could not lift it, as this would make God possibly contradictory Blackburn (1996: 268), but does explain that the classic explanation is that God cannot commit the logically impossible. Blackburn (1996: 268).
William T. Shedd explains that God cannot do what is ‘absurd and self-contradictory’. Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 359 Volume 1).
In my view this is an answered objection. D.Z. Phillips raised similar objections in (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. I also dealt with Phillips' interesting work in the PhD thesis and on this site. (March 12, 2016).
Freewill
Blackburn explains free will theory requires autonomous beings that are able to perform free actions without any significant influence upon their will. Blackburn (1996: 31). He describes autonomy as the ability of agents to govern themselves, and for this to occur autonomous agents must commit actions which are truly their own. Blackburn (1996: 31). Autonomy cannot occur when an outside force is coercing or forcing a will to act. Blackburn (1996: 31).
This definition relates to incompatibilism and related views:
I hold to a Reformed compatibilist view:
If to both compatibilists and incompatibilists, human beings at times can be forced to commit actions against their will, Pojman (1996: 596), it is ever more likely that the human will is not the primary cause in human actions, but the secondary cause if it is allowed to be a secondary determining factor by the primary cause. Pojman (1996: 596).
This concept is describing soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).
(If human beings are forced or coerced to commit human actions)
Therefore
These actions would be done without significant human freedom and therefore it would be intellectually untenable to attach human moral responsibility to such actions.
Within compatibilism human freedom is considered to be analogous to God’s freedom but not equal with it; human freedom is considered limited while God’s is absolute. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 28).
Feinberg, who has written extensively on the concepts of free will and determinism, explains incompatibilism is defined as the idea within free will theodicy that a person is free in regard to an action if he or she is free to either commit, or refrain from committing the action. Feinberg (1994: 64).
There can be no antecedent conditions or laws that will determine that an action is committed or not committed. Indeterminism is defined as the idea that there are no antecedent (preceding conditions) or simultaneous causes of human actions.
Indeterminism and libertarian free will are related terms to incompatibilism. At times used synonymously.
Soft determinism is a related term to compatibilism, at times used synonymously.
This is contrasted with hard determinism or determinism:
Pojman (1996) explains the difference between determinism, which is also known as hard determinism, and compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism. Pojman (1996: 596).
Within determinism or hard determinism, God causes an act and no created being is responsible for his or her moral actions, while for compatibilism or soft determinism, although God causes actions, created beings are responsible where they act voluntarily. Pojman (1996: 596).
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.
In his article entitled ‘Conditional’ Simon Blackburn writes that an antecedent exists if p causes q. P is the antecedent or prior cause of q which is the conditional and the consequence. Blackburn (1996: 73-74).
Compatibilism, like incompatibilism, holds to free will but in a limited form. Pojman (1996: 596).
Feinberg, a noted compatibilist, describes compatibilism as stating certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). Feinberg (2001) explains that with this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (1994: 60).
Human Nature
Blackburn writes that some forms of metaphysical libertarianism, postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random. Blackburn (1996: 218). It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature, in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’ Blackburn (1996: 218).
It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature. Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). Blackburn (1996: 218). It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency.
I agree with the use of the term ‘fantasy’ in context as human will is traced back to human nature, in agreement with Edwards. (March 12, 2016).
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. http://www.jonathanedwards.com
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
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.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
