Throughout the semester we have expounded upon various topics, but none have been more pivotal than the problem of evil. The problem of evil occurs when encounter the logical dilemmas resulting from the labeling of a deity as omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. While reflecting upon this topic, I thought of a question. Do religious people believe in luck? Furthermore does an atheist believe in luck, if not why not? Does luck differ from fortune or even destiny? Some claim that luck occurs to those that are prepared; I would have to repudiate such claims.
The most vivid recollection of luck I’ve had was in eighth grade. The vice-principal also held the role of “dean. ” To phrase it bluntly he was in charge of dishing out punishment. I had gotten in trouble. As a punishment I was to show my mom a letter and have her sign it. Well days had gone by and my mom had not read the letter nor signed it. I was summoned to the dean’s office; he expressed his discontent with my actions thus far. He also advised me to have my mom sign the note that night and return it to his office or endure a detention.
I had gotten reprimanded before, but never a detention. That night my trepidation rose to concernable levels and walked into school without a signature. As I walked to Religion/ Mathematics homeroom and class I noticed Dean’s office was wide open. The dean was nowhere to be found and there was a clutter of papers on his desk. After lunch, I was called to the side before we went to recess and demanded the sheet. So I did what every 13 year old would do, I lied. “I didn’t want to forget and get a detention, so I left it on your desk this morning. ”
He said, “Okay. He never inquired about the sheet again, and no one was the wiser. Luck is a noun that has a positive connotation. “I wish you luck. Aww man you’re so lucky. ” Yet what does that actually signify? Author Max Gunther defined this phenomenon as “events that influence one’s life and are seemingly beyond one’s control. ” This definition of luck is riveting; this would seemingly imply that there is a force greater than us, who perhaps may designate the direction of our lives. This leads me back to the problem of evil, because there is coincidentally bad luck; events that negatively impact our lives.
How is it decided who will have good luck or bad luck? It is as arbitrary as the roll of a dice? German-American philosopher Nicholas Rescher, wrote and published a book entitled Luck: The Brilliant Randomness of Everyday Life. In this book Rescher analyses’ the elusive phenomenon of luck. He begins with a rather stark account of luck, detailing the city Kokura. Kokura was the city the atomic bomb was strike, there was an abundance of clouds and haze forcing the pilot to drop the bomb on Nagasaki instead. Rescher proceeds to delve into the human significance of luck.
Our choices and decisions propose, but the ultimate disposition is at the mercy of a force beyond the limits of our cognitive and practical control” He asserts that we are intelligent agents of limited knowledge who will always make decisions on the foundation that we will never have an unabridged version of information thus we are inevitably at the beck and call of luck. While an perspicacious thinker Rescher then purports that: “When matters do indeed turn out as we design, then- all too frequently- it is by good luck rather than rationally determinative planning and execution.
And if things of badly, then- all too frequently- it is by bad luck rather than sheer incompetence. ” This concept is eerie, due to the nature of his first conclusion. This would mean rather than us exerting a substantial amount of control over our lives and environment, humans resemble a small sailboat at the relentless sovereignty of the wind. The thought that we only have apparent control, also means there is no predictability. This is intricately tied to the psychological theory of locus of control. This theory declares that there is two locus of control; internal and external.
Individuals who have an internal locus of control believe they have mastery their lives and individuals with external locus of control believe that life is determined by environmental factors which are uninfluenceable. He claims humans have this penchant of an unwillingness to assent to unpredictable chance in matters that are of fateful importance of ourselves, thus the tendency in us seeing divine planning at work in lieu of random happenstance. Reshler is determined to show the haphazardly impact luck can have given an example of a deadly epidemic, yet one can compare it to something as trivial as the flu.
You could wash your hands after every questionable encounter, wear a mask and keep a container of wet wipes and hand sanitizer and still catch that flu. Similarly that kid who would eat a Flamin’ Hot Cheeto off the ground because three second rule, will never incur an illness of any kind. In contemplation if the aforementioned illustration of illness Reshler also claims the reason we wish an individual “good luck” is not to propose the person have has an ineptitude but rather is a manifestation of our understanding that “competence alone is not enough to secure success.
That the best possible effort may not meet the success it deserves. This deterministic approach is too “hand off. ” Reshler eventually identifies what luck is, and juxtaposes it to Fate and Fortune. “Luck is a matter of having something good or bad happens that lies outside the horizon of effective foreseeability. ” Luck is something unpredictable. Rescher expounds on the conundrum of luck, asserting there are three necessary attributes for an event to correctly be assessed as luck.
A beneficiary or maleficiary, a development that is positive or negative from the standpoint of the interest of the affected individual, and that it is fortuitous. This approach seems to claim a methodical game such as chess or even me writing this paper relies on luck. The latter example seems like a hyperbole, yet I am maleficairy in writing the paper, I would also rather be playing Dota 2 instead of writing this paper, I also had planned on writing this paper two nights ago. I’m truly unlucky that I have to write a paper? Currently notion of luck is contrived.
If were to apply Hume’s supposition of miracles, there would be no such thing as luck either. Hume views a miracle as a transgression of natural law. Yet the event viewed as a miracle, is seen in that perspective because it refutes our current understanding of nature. Therefore we must adapt and modify our interpretation of natural laws to assimilate the corresponding event. Reshler claimed earlier that we make our decisions based on not having a full understanding of information or (natural law) hence we are at the mercy of luck.
Recall an element of luck is it being fortuitous, so once a lucky or unlucky event occurs we must reshape the information we know to incorporate. Furthermore the word luck and miracle are interchangeable. An atheist can view an event as lucky, but a theist can perceive that same event as a divine intervention Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote a book called Physics. In book two part four Aristotle beings to addresses the idiosyncratic phenomenon referred to as chance and spontaneity. He begins by divulging various opinions of chance.
Some say that nothing happens by chance but rather what we ascribe to chance has a bona fide cause. He reaffirms this opinion of chance by stating is perplexing that chance would exist in if none of the old wise men took an account of chance. Yet the manner in which discussion takes place insinuates that certain events occur due to see chance and others did not. Another opinion Aristotle develops is that chance is an enigmatic experience that cannot be discerned by human intelligence. The third perspective of chance draws strong parallels to miracles.
In part five Aristotle embarks on a discussion of chance or luck. He first says that certain events are “for the sake of something” others are not. Some of those events rely on deliberate intention. He explains that events for the sake of something include actions resulting from thought or nature. Thus, when a thing of this kind comes to pass among events which are for the sake of something, is said to be spontaneous or by chance. Aristotle notes that spontaneousness and chances are not identical. He illuminates the concept of chance with a narrative depicting a man collecting proceeds for a feast.
The Feast Man have would have gone to location A with the intention of collecting money, had he been aware. He arrives at location A for an intention other than collecting money. While at location A, Feast Man incidentally obtains money for his feast, this occurred due to chance. If the feast man gone to location A with the deliberate forethought of receiving payments or “intelligent deliberation” it would not be referred to as occurring by chance. Part six of book 2 in Physics depicts the similarity between spontaneousness and chance.
Spontaneousness is inclusive of chance; however chance is a minor facet of spontitunity. Aristotle asserts that chance is a result of certain agents whom are capable of good fortune and moral action; this is the commencement of an astute distinction regarding who is capable of harnessing the elusiveness of chance. He proposes that inanimate things, lower animals and children cannot do anything by chance since good fortune is the same happiness and happiness can be viewed as a subclass of moral actions; thus what is incapable of moral action cannot do anything by chance.
Furthermore those inanimate objects, lower animals, and children are not incapable of deliberate intention, ergo nor can the attribute good or ill fortune be labeled towards them. Rather they can be spontaneous. We can concur that a stool may be used as a seat, but if a a stool falls on the ground it would be erroneous to suppose that it fell because it did not want to serve as a seat any longer. The argument of spontaneousness is a fallacious one at best. I can see why he might say that an inanimate object is incapable of chance or even good fortune.
Children and lower animals are capable of happiness and consequently moral action for several reasons. They are both competent of deliberate action; a baby may not be able to communicate if it hungry, but it will cry until someone feeds it. The action of feed or there of lack of action would constitute good or ill fortune. In conjunction with hunger, baby sense a deprivement of calmness, perhaps even a sentiment of unhappiness. Luck, chance, and miracles seem to have a derivation of the same meaning: an occurrence of an event.
The definition substantially diverge ranging from, a solely positive phenomenon, to an only an occurrence that is unperceivable. Was my grade school experience luck or was there only a certain aspect of that interaction that was lucky? It seems according Reshler it depends which circumstance is evaluated. My lie contains the two of the three components of luck; a beneficiary, there was a positive development upon my condition, but one could reason I did not lie by chance. In a lie there are two eventual options: belief or distrust. There will never be certainty to the dean’s assessment of my statement.
He also could have told me he did not find the sheet, or he could have called my mom to make sure I signed it. Since there was no admonishment from my mother, nor was I approached about the situation. Yet I seemingly knew that my lie was unsustainable, so it was fortuitous that the Dean believed me. We can conclude I was lucky, even though I don’t conforms to requirements, because the sequence of were unforeseeable. Luck is complex topic, which could use more discussion. At its current state it is indiscernible from peculiar outcome as a result from a dubious presumption.
