(August 23, 2013 at 3:58 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: The Free-will Defense to the problem of evil can, I believe, be simply summarized as saying that the explanation for a benevolent, all-powerful and perfect god allowing for evil/suffering to exist in his creation is that [libertarian] free will is something so good that keeping it intact is necessary for said deity, even though it allows for agents to possibly do evil. There are some problems with this for theists I think, that I'd like to see them answer.
Firstly, I'd like to know how libertarian free will is such a high good. To clarify, proponents of this apologetic heavily imply this since the whole purported reason for evil existing is to allow for the preservation of free will. Anyhow, there doesn't seem - on the face of it - to be anything about libertarian free will that "makes" it good in the way that other things can be said to be (making people happy, preventing harm, etc.). The only response that seems to make come close to making sense is to say that it safeguards moral blameworthyness/praise. But that would seem to clash with the orthodox belief that all praise and glory is to be to God. Or rather, all it seems to say is that it is so that God can get himself praised by his creations.
Another thing is that under libertarian free will, you can be inclined without being necessitated. And yet according to a literal reading of Genesis (which seems a widespread view) Adam and Eve were so easily swayed by the serpent into disobeying God. If God had wanted us to truly not sin, could he not simply have inclined us not to sin or disobey him, or made the first 2 humans be so inclined (but not necessitated) to listen to him over all others? If the answer is no, then that's tantamount to determinism (i.e all humans would have eaten the forbidden fruit), which contradicts the above.
I think these needs defending.
Lastly, - and I think this is the biggest issue - the libertarian concept of free will doesn't have a tenable or coherent formulation (currently). This is I think reflected in the fact that under 14% of philosophers subscribe to it, versus say compatibilusm's ~60%. Even Robert Kane, who's thought to have given a clever whack at working it out, isn't convinced of his attempt and sustained heavy critique by the likes of Dennett.
So if there isn't a coherent formulation of libertarian free will, then theists cannot use the Free will defense, yes? Sorry for the length. o3o
Sorry for chiming in late here, but I would just like to add my two cents if you don't mind. Christians do not grasp the actual meaning of "free-will" - and this can be demonstrated in a very simple way. Christians believe that their boogeyman, the devil, influences people to believe the wrong things, and to do evil things. They also believe that their god influences them to believe the right things, and to do good things. What they fail to acknowledge is that if an "outside influence" (especially a supernatural influence with an obvious advantage over a human will) of ANY kind is involved in even the slightest possible way, a "will" cannot be defined as "free". If the devil influences someone in any way, that automatically voids their free-will. If god influences someone in any way, that automatically voids their free-will.
Also, if coercion is involved in ANY way, a "will" cannot be defined as "free." In other words, with the threat of eternal damnation lurking in the shadows if one does not "choose" the right option, that automatically voids free-will. There is no such thing as free-will when a person thinks they are going to be burned alive for eternity if they "choose" Option B instead of Option A.
