Free Will in D’holbach’s Philosophy of Religion

Subject: Philosophy
Pages: 4
Words: 842
Reading time:
3 min
Study level: College

Explain What D’holbach Means

A critical review and analysis of his thoughts depicts the sense of a great determinist. According to this thought, most choices inherent to man emanate from situations beyond their control. The basic implication in this assumption is that there are other fundamental determinants. Particularly, this relates to an individual’s decision in life. The impacts are similar. Through the sentiment, it is obvious that D’holbach discards free will. Therefore, an individual might not bear direct obligation over their actions. In this perspective, D’holbach doubts the existence of the basic right of logic.

Explain How Sartre, Stace, and Bender Would Each Respond To D’holbach Statement

Sartre would definitely criticize D’holbach’s statement. Sartre believed on the principle of externalism. According to him, individuals possess the capacity to guard themselves against certain occurrences. Therefore, Sartre would have rejected the D’holbach’s belief on the causation of certain events in individual lives. Stace is a renowned philosopher in the domains of moral relativism. According to Stace, the different social models and strategies bear diverse effects on individuals. Therefore, he would have observed that there is no one solitary pattern of behavior. Bender turns out to be an empiricist. Perhaps, Bender’s convictions on the role of empirical occurrences in transforming philosophy would be helpful. He would have disregarded D’holbach’s statement by virtue of its lack of empirical proof.

Do You Agree with D’holbach’s Statement? Explain

Personally, I do not agree with D’holbach’s Statement. The statement seems to avoid the essence of individual’s accountability for their activities. All persons have some sense and logic that dictate all their actions. This is integrated within the mental faculty of all individuals. Therefore, it would be fallacious to claim that the actions of individuals are largely influenced beyond their control.

Explain the Argument from Evil. Use an Example to Illustrate Your Answer

The argument developed by the works of Epiricus majorly negates God’s existence. It indicates the incompatibility in all sentiments supporting the presence of God. There is a wide belief, particularly, from some theists that God permits a given level of evil to exist in the world. Thus, this gives rise to the “argument from evil.” There exist evident instances of incompatibility. For example, if God is omnipotent, he should be able to block all evil from occurring. On the other hand, it is notable that evil still exists. This explains the level of incompatibility, given that God also exists.

Would William Clifford Think That the Believer Is Justified In Continuing To Hold His Belief? Explain Why or Why Not.

William Clifford argues according to the “Ethics of Belief.” William had firm convictions on the essence of proof. There must be an adequate evidence for the believer to insist on the existence of God. This is because there is lack of sufficient evidence to cause such a belief.

Would William James Think That the Believer Is Justified In Continuing To Hold His Belief? Explain Why or Why Not.

William James stresses on the significance of application of intellectual responsibility. Particularly, this is applicable in situations that lack adequate evidence. Therefore, according to William James, the believer is justified in continuing to hold his belief. Actually, his perceptions are directly the opposite of those held by William Clifford.

Do You Think the Argument from Evil Is Successful? Explain.

The “argument from evil” is not successful. Indicatively, it neglects the significance of applying empirical premises in supporting the proposition. It is vital for all arguments and statements to draw assumptions from empirical processes. This explains the deficiency of dependability and reliability of the argument from evil. An empirically deduced argument would provide a more reliable conviction. Therefore, the argument is unsuccessful.

Whatever Your Answer In (d), Suppose That the Argument Works. Do You Think the Believer Is Justified In Continuing To Hold His Belief?

It is clear that the “argument from evil” lacks the appropriate empirical evidence or proof. Therefore, the believer lacks the justification to continue to hold his belief. A person has no right to hold a belief on something that is not scientifically evidenced or premised.

What Is It? Use an Example, Other Than Bender’s to explain it

The Bender’s provide a typical example of “the prediction room.” However, there are other critical examples that can adequately illustrate this concept. Ideally, the concept explains the likelihood of transformation that may occur in people’s expectations. Typical in daily life, individuals are likely to realize the opposite of their expectations. This is clearly portrayed in the concept of prediction room.

What Do You Think It Is Supposed To Show?

The prediction room shows that individuals must base their expectations on practical occurrences or possibilities. There is likely to be an occurrence that may not be welcomed by most personalities. Therefore, persons must take into account other likely outcomes.

Do You Think Bender Is Successful

Bender is very successful. This is because people must not usually expect all things to work towards their anticipations or favours. Rather, it is appropriate to indulge an empirical questioning methodology to infer anticipated outcomes.