The Free Will Defense - Isn't it Unusable?

[Esquilax]

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.

I think you're rather missing the point: the argument isn't that the god of the bible doesn't exist, just that if he does exist, then his portrayal by christians is drastically out of whack as compared to his actions in the world.

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.

Okay, so I explained to you a methodology for morality from an atheist perspective in a previous thread. It's clear that you didn't pay attention, or perhaps you're just happier with your strawmen, but... well, that don't mean I ain't gonna call you on that, skippy.

Maybe next time, I dunno, you could actually talk to an atheist before you decide you're qualified to tell us what we believe, hmm? Wouldn't that be, you know, honest?

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

Well sure, under my worldview agent-produced suffering is 'evil'.

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.

Wasn't I using the problem of suffering? xD

The rest of your post was quite good. Always nice to be kept on my toes.

[Chas]

That's because there's a third proposition you've skipped over. You need to add "god is always good" in there.

Ok...

I grant your point.

The propositions:

P1. An Omnibenevolent God exists

and..

P2. Evil Exists

are not logically contradictory.

In defending this view, we would be delving into theodicies and theology, which means I would have to do a lot of teaching on Anselmian Perfect Being Theology and the attributes of God under such a view as the scholastics held.

In defending the view, a definition of "evil" would have to be given as well.

---

But that god cannot be omnipotent and loving. One or the other, but not both.

I believe He can be both. My view is defended by the scholastics and theologians such as Aquinas, Anselm, and others.

Speaking strictly logically, and taking into account Anselms's conceptualization of The Greatest Conceivable Being, a being who can be both would be greater than a being who could only be one or the other. Therefore, God must be both omnipotent and loving.

I am unmoved bt St. Anselm's arguments. Just because one can conceive of something does not entail its existence. The argument is silly.

---

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?

No, Darrow was not making a 'slave to DNA' argument, and was not referring to "pre-determined beliefs" - whatever those are.

He was referring to their lack of empathy, their inability to identify with their victim. They were lacking in their nature.

[Aldarion]

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.