The Free Will Defense - Isn't it Unusable?

[discipulus]

I think a more powerful and explicit formulation would be along the lines of:

P1) God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

P2) God's actions are in line with and a reflection of his nature.

P3) God created the universe.

P4) The universe contains evil, and evil is not a reflection of God's nature.

C) ?


Whether or not that entails a contradiction is hard for me to say. This is the sort of issue the Free-will Defense is supposed to guard against I think, which I don't think works (hence the thread :p).

Excellent.

Also note here, that we essentially are discussing what is termed "the problem of evil."

I think the first thing I would do if I were talking with an atheist about the objections they have regarding evil and the apparent contradiction of its existence and God's existence is what their view of evil is.

I would simply ask:

What, as an atheist, do you mean when you say evil? What is it? How did we get this idea of "evil"?

I would dialogue with them about that and try to come to some type of consensus about what they think it is. After all, they have to have something in mind if they raise the objection in the first place.

Many times, objections to Christianity are simply based on misunderstandings of some of its doctrines which can simply be explained and the confusion cleared up.

[Zen Badger]

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

I guess you god does create evil after all.

[FallentoReason]

Whenever the "no free will => we would be robots" rubbish gets brought up, I just point them straight to their own book and show them that Adam & Eve *knew* of God's existence, yet they rebelled. Lucifer was another who *knew* of God's existence and was in his *direct presence* yet he rebelled as well. In short, the Bible supports perfectly the notion that undeniably knowing about God's existence wouldn't actually rob us of our free will.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm perfectly willing to believe I have free will, because it feels as if I have free will.

But a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient God is as inimical to free will as is a deterministic universe. If God is omniscient (and I've read the manual, it says he is), then not only does he know everything that happens, but he knows everything that has happened, and (most importantly) everything that will happen. Any other set of conditions stretches the meaning of the word 'omniscient' out of all recognizable shape.

So, if God knows everything that is ever going to happen, he knows all the choices you are ever going to make and he is going to know the results of those choices - from which spoon you use to stir your coffee to whom you're going to marry - everything. Furthermore, if God knows all this, then he has always known it (see above). Effectively, this amounts to 1) everything is going to play out in a pattern already known of and approved by God, and 2) God creates people known that some of them are going to have absolutely horrific lives.

Free will might work to a non-deterministic quantum mechanic, it can never work in the context of a God who created everything and knows everything.

Boru

[genkaus]

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

This is more of a critique of your argument rather than a reply.

First of all, you seem to be equating evil with suffering. An understandable mistake - considering theists often equate omni-benevolent with all good. Suffering among humans can have many causes, from our physiological make-up to large-scale natural disasters. Of those only agent-caused suffering can be conceivably regarded as evil. Regarding an earthquake or disease as an act of evil would be plain insane.

I would regard the "problem of suffering" as a greater argument against theology than the "problem of evil". If "good" is defined as something according to god's will, "evil" as something against it, "free-will" as will independent of god's will - then free-will would be a sufficient explanation for existence of evil. Basically, the argument is "free-will is good because god wants it, but a logical result of it would be the possibility of existence of evil". Regardless of all the other logical gymnastics to justify why god's will should be considered good or why should we consider that as free-will, this part of the argument remains valid.

The problem of suffering is more difficult to answer. God's omnibenevolence also presumes that he does not want you to suffer (one reason why suffering is often regarded as evil). Being omnipotent (and ignoring why that in itself would be illogical), he should be capable of negating suffering without negating the free-will. Compare it to the political concept of freedom. Even though you are free to attempt murdering someone, the government will try to stop you. While your will to murder has not been violated even if your actions have not been realized. At the very least all the non-agency induced suffering should not exist at all. The explanation given by theists for this is either to somehow blame human agents for the suffering (however convoluted or illogical that may be) or to somehow glorify suffering by calling it "for the greater good" (which renders their god a sadistic megalomaniac on a whole another level).

Finally, regarding the issue of why free-will is considered good - and for this part, the existence of god is irrelevant as is the actual existence of free-will. Assume for now that we consider happiness and joy to be good and pain and suffering to be evil. The fact of human psychology is that a great part of our happiness is tied to our sense of self-worth and pride. The idea of being responsible for our own actions - actions which may not necessarily lead to happiness themselves - itself adds a whole new dimension of happiness to our psyche. On the flip-side, it adds a whole new dimension of suffering through guilt and shame. Which is why regardless of there being a god, the idea of having free-will is considered good - with good meaning conducive to one's happiness.

---

I however, see no logical contradiction in the propositions: "God exists" and "evil exists".

Me neither. But then, I regard your god as especially evil.

---

I think a more powerful and explicit formulation would be along the lines of:

P1) God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

P2) God's actions are in line with and a reflection of his nature.

P3) God created the universe.

P4) The universe contains evil, and evil is not a reflection of God's nature.

C) ?


Whether or not that entails a contradiction is hard for me to say. This is the sort of issue the Free-will Defense is supposed to guard against I think, which I don't think works (hence the thread :p).

Its hard to say because of P1 and P2. You have defined god's nature as self-contradictory and then you ask if a non-contradictory conclusion can be drawn from those premises.

[CapnAwesome]

Excellent.

Also note here, that we essentially are discussing what is termed "the problem of evil."

I think the first thing I would do if I were talking with an atheist about the objections they have regarding evil and the apparent contradiction of its existence and God's existence is what their view of evil is.

I would simply ask:

What, as an atheist, do you mean when you say evil? What is it? How did we get this idea of "evil"?

I would dialogue with them about that and try to come to some type of consensus about what they think it is. After all, they have to have something in mind if they raise the objection in the first place.

Many times, objections to Christianity are simply based on misunderstandings of some of its doctrines which can simply be explained and the confusion cleared up.

Basically you would change the topic to try to put Atheists on the defensive. I've seen about a thousand of those discussions going in a circle on the internet and no matter how much the Atheist parties explain the discussion never seems to go back to the problem of evil and always gets sidetracked to Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. It's the same every time. Besides it shouldn't really matter what Atheists think as evil, since the whole problem of evil revolves around what Theists think anyway.

For example, I as an Atheist aren't concerned as to why evil exists. It doesn't contradict with my beliefs at all, you'd expect some humans to act evil because the things we'd classify as evil (unwanted violence mostly) exist in every species.

The problem of evil is addressing the Theistic position. Where an Atheist believes morality or evil comes from is not relevant to the discussion. Once again it is not a discussion about the Atheist's beliefs.

The second big big objection I have to your post is about the objections to Christianity mostly being a misunderstanding of their doctrines. Christianity is not a single religion with a single doctrine. In fact it's thousands of different sects and cults and religions with an equal number of doctrines. It's impossible to know the doctrines of them all so I'm not sure about your own particular branch or brand of Christianity. Maybe I have serious objections and maybe I have minor ones, but you can't say that it's just a misunderstanding of Christianity because Christian thought is so diverse.

[discipulus]

Basically you would change the topic to try to put Atheists on the defensive. I've seen about a thousand of those discussions going in a circle on the internet and no matter how much the Atheist parties explain the discussion never seems to go back to the problem of evil and always gets sidetracked to Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. It's the same every time. Besides it shouldn't really matter what Atheists think as evil, since the whole problem of evil revolves around what Theists think anyway.

For example, I as an Atheist aren't concerned as to why evil exists. It doesn't contradict with my beliefs at all, you'd expect some humans to act evil because the things we'd classify as evil (unwanted violence mostly) exist in every species.

The problem of evil is addressing the Theistic position. Where an Atheist believes morality or evil comes from is not relevant to the discussion. Once again it is not a discussion about the Atheist's beliefs.

The second big big objection I have to your post is about the objections to Christianity mostly being a misunderstanding of their doctrines. Christianity is not a single religion with a single doctrine. In fact it's thousands of different sects and cults and religions with an equal number of doctrines. It's impossible to know the doctrines of them all so I'm not sure about your own particular branch or brand of Christianity. Maybe I have serious objections and maybe I have minor ones, but you can't say that it's just a misunderstanding of Christianity because Christian thought is so diverse.

If an atheist argues that evil is evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, then yes, it is relevant what the atheist thinks evil is. Afterall, they are the one presenting the argument.

The conspicuous problem with an atheistic/naturalistic view of reality, is that "evil" is simply a word used to describe certain actions or behaviors that are not conducive to the survival of a species. It all ultimately boils down to that one issue, for that is what nature is concerned with. But if every person that commits evil, is themselves, a by-product of evolution, then nature is the one responsible for producing entities that act in a way that we have been programmed to believe is not conducive to the survival of a species.

This was the line of reason used in the Leopold and Loeb trial by Clarence Darrow, for in his closing speech he remarks as to why the boys killed Bobby Franks:

"Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped...."

and...

"This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor..."

Closing Argument
The State of Illinois v. Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb
Delivered by Clarence Darrow
Chicago, Illinois, August 22, 1924

Darrow admitted the guilt of his clients but argued that forces beyond their control influenced their actions. Law professor Phillip Johnson describes Darrow's argument this way: "Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it." Darrow convinced the judge to spare his clients. Leopold and Loeb received life in prison.

The following year, Clarence Darrow played a leading role in another "trial of the century." He defended John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee law.

So we see from the above that if we take the naturalistic/Darwinistic view of evil as simply that which is descriptive of an act which is not advantageous to the survival of a species which a person commits as a result of being born with a certain chemical and physiological makeup that makes them more prone to certain acts, then the people that committed certain acts in the name of the God they worshipped were no different than the two boys who killed young Bobby Franks. They were simply acting in accordance with their particular physiological makeup given to them by nature. Their belief in God was a belief that encouraged and fostered their survival as a species which was itself the by-product of socio-biological pressures, and they acting in accordance with their pre-determined beliefs were simply them dancing to their DNA.


But I am willing to wager, if I were a betting man, that some of the very atheists here will hesitate to agree with this conclusion. For inherent in the general understanding of an act being evil is the idea of moral culpability....i.e. that one could have chosen not to do a certain act, but did it anyway and at the expense of another person's welfare which would make the act an evil act or a wrong thing or bad thing to do.

But since for an act to be evil, the one committing the act must be morally culpable, then how can we really call anything evil if we are not morally culpable?

[genkaus]

If an atheist argues that evil is evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist, then yes, it is relevant what the atheist thinks evil is. Afterall, they are the one presenting the argument.

The conspicuous problem with an atheistic/naturalistic view of reality, is that "evil" is simply a word used to describe certain actions or behaviors that are not conducive to the survival of a species. It all ultimately boils down to that one issue, for that is what nature is concerned with. But if every person that commits evil, is themselves, a by-product of evolution, then nature is the one responsible for producing entities that act in a way that we have been programmed to believe is not conducive to the survival of a species.

This was the line of reason used in the Leopold and Loeb trial by Clarence Darrow, for in his closing speech he remarks as to why the boys killed Bobby Franks:

"Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped...."

and...

"This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor..."

Closing Argument
The State of Illinois v. Nathan Leopold & Richard Loeb
Delivered by Clarence Darrow
Chicago, Illinois, August 22, 1924

Darrow admitted the guilt of his clients but argued that forces beyond their control influenced their actions. Law professor Phillip Johnson describes Darrow's argument this way: "Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it." Darrow convinced the judge to spare his clients. Leopold and Loeb received life in prison.

The following year, Clarence Darrow played a leading role in another "trial of the century." He defended John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee law.

So we see from the above that if we take the naturalistic/Darwinistic view of evil as simply that which is descriptive of an act which is not advantageous to the survival of a species which a person commits as a result of being born with a certain chemical and physiological makeup that makes them more prone to certain acts, then the people that committed certain acts in the name of the God they worshipped were no different than the two boys who killed young Bobby Franks. They were simply acting in accordance with their particular physiological makeup given to them by nature. Their belief in God was a belief that encouraged and fostered their survival as a species which was itself the by-product of socio-biological pressures, and they acting in accordance with their pre-determined beliefs were simply them dancing to their DNA.


But I am willing to wager, if I were a betting man, that some of the very atheists here will hesitate to agree with this conclusion. For inherent in the general understanding of an act being evil is the idea of moral culpability....i.e. that one could have chosen not to do a certain act, but did it anyway and at the expense of another person's welfare which would make the act an evil act or a wrong thing or bad thing to do.

But since for an act to be evil, the one committing the act must be morally culpable, then how can we really call anything evil if we are not morally culpable?

Zip up. Your ignorance is showing.

This seems to be a common tactic with you - build an elaborate, ignorant strawman of the atheistic position and then allow the debate to get sidetracked.

Well, all your presumptions about the atheistic position are bogus. I don't regard evil as something "not conducive to survival of species". I don't regard every human as just "a by-product of evolution". I do not hold nature responsible for any "evil". It is not the naturalistic position and it is not my position.

For the purpose of this discussion, "evil" is assumed to mean "intentional infliction of pain and suffering". Now stop being a pussy and address the issue.

[FifthElement]

Speaking strictly logically...

This is where I stopped reading, lol

[rexbeccarox]

What springs to mind when you ask me about evil?



In my view, "evil" is not a convincing construct.