The Problem of Good

[Edwardo Piet]

From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?

From a libertarian free will perspective... how the fuck can anything make sense.

[orangebox21]

From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?

He is sovereign in as much as he dispenses justice and rules over all. That is not the same as being controlling and coercive.

Could you please expound this a bit more? Are you claiming that any view other than libertarian free will necessitates that God is controlling and coercive?

[athrock]

Theist apologists frequently cite free will as being the answer to the problem of evil. It's important that we have the choice to do bad things, even though we're not supposed to do those bad things. So, when people cause problems, we are to blame, even if God could have prevented it.

The problem of this bit of apologetics is it doesn't mesh with the other half of what they claim to believe. It doesn't take good into account. People are always praising God for things that people do. I'm constantly hearing praises for getting a new job, getting better after medical treatment, or doing well on a test after studying. Every single one of these things hinge on human action. When people do good things, they say it is because of God and not the person (don't want to admit to pride), but it's never God's fault when they do bad things.

So, when everything is going great in the world, apparently God can muck around with that all day long, and anything good that happens ever is because of God. But all the bad stuff is never his fault. That's just us. Their stated belief is that God is such a powerful being that he literally sticks his hands in every facet of life, no matter how small, until it comes to us misbehaving. Then, he takes a strictly hands-off approach, because we need to be free to misbehave. Even more strange is that God gets people jobs, allows medical treatment to work, and lets people recall key facts on tests regardless of their behavior. There seems to be no correlation between a person's behavior and how often God "blesses" them.

If moral autonomy is so precious to the theist apologist, they should stop giving their god credit for the good things people do. I thought people have to be free to make those good choices. This god of special pleading is fatiguing and trite.

I would agree with you that people often attribute good things that happen to them to god when it may just have been luck. However, the fact that they make what may be erroneous attributions doesn't actually undermine the theist argument for free will. After all, they may simply be wrong. (Of course, sometimes they could be right if God really does exist.)

For example, players on both teams hold hands in the locker room and pray for victory. But only one team wins. Afterward, the winning side thanks god for the W, but what about the other side? Do they blame god for the loss? Nope.

So, here's the thing: although this is annoying, it has no real bearing on the legitimate discussion of free will. That is a much more sophisticated discussion than talking about how a supreme being helped someone find a parking space when they were going to a job interview.

[RobbyPants]

No Christian perfectly represents Christ.  You will always be able to find ways in which we are not living in accordance to the truth.  Hopefully you are able to see this as our personal imperfection, not as a valid expression of Christ or Christian living.

Yes, but again: I was talking about inconsistency in apologetics. Nowhere do I make the assumption that any person is perfect; it's just the flip-flopping on apologetics gets annoying.

Do you agree that we are personally responsible for our actions?

If we're assuming the world isn't deterministic, then yes, but that is a red herring. I was replying to what you said in the previous post:

If the good we do is not of ourselves, but rather Christ living within us, then it logically follows that God should get the glory for the good we do.  And if we bear within ourselves a sinful nature, then we bear the blame for the bad we do.  Special pleading is when an exemption is made without adequate justification.  In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, but if we can only do good by God's acting, why doesn't he "act" more often? Once it becomes impossible to be good without God taking an action, all instances of us not being good become God's fault. It's his fault if his action or inaction is the single determining factor of the outcome.

Also, God only gets credit for good, but not bad. We get blamed for the bad, but not credit for good... yet Satan is listed as tempting us. Why doesn't Satan get blamed for the bad, instead?

We do need to define our terms here to avoid confusion.

Compatibilist free will-  The notion that our choices are compatible with determination.

Libertarian free will-  Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

From a Christian worldview, determinism is a result of the sovereignty of God, and in a materialistic worldview, determinism is a result of naturalistic processes.

I would like to point out here that our worldviews share the same challenge.  From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?  And in a materialist worldview (which is deterministic in nature), how can libertarian free will even exist?  From a compatibilist perspective, if we are predetermined (by a sovereign God or natural processes) to a certain action, can our free will be held responsible for that action?  And which answer most accurately represents reality?

further compatibilist reading

Thanks for the clarification. I'm assuming most people use the word in the libertarian sense.

[RobbyPants]

So, here's the thing: although this is annoying, it has no real bearing on the legitimate discussion of free will. That is a much more sophisticated discussion than talking about how a supreme being helped someone find a parking space when they were going to a job interview.

The point isn't to disprove nonfalsifiable notions about a nonfalsifiable entity; I don't particularly care about that. The point is to show the flip flopping inherent in stock apologetics used by (seemingly) most people.

[orangebox21]

No Christian perfectly represents Christ.  You will always be able to find ways in which we are not living in accordance to the truth.  Hopefully you are able to see this as our personal imperfection, not as a valid expression of Christ or Christian living.

Yes, but again: I was talking about inconsistency in apologetics. Nowhere do I make the assumption that any person is perfect; it's just the flip-flopping on apologetics gets annoying.

I agree that inconsistency is annoying.  And I'm sorry, if I wasn't clear enough.  

Do you agree that we are personally responsible for our actions?

If we're assuming the world isn't deterministic, then yes, but that is a red herring. I was replying to what you said in the previous post:

If the good we do is not of ourselves, but rather Christ living within us, then it logically follows that God should get the glory for the good we do.  And if we bear within ourselves a sinful nature, then we bear the blame for the bad we do.  Special pleading is when an exemption is made without adequate justification.  In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

(Emphasis mine)

Yes, but if we can only do good by God's acting, why doesn't he "act" more often?

That is an excellent question, but a different one than "is God responsible for my actions?"

Once it becomes impossible to be good without God taking an action, all instances of us not being good become God's fault. It's his fault if his action or inaction is the single determining factor of the outcome.

That is true only if determinism is true.  In determinism the 'determiner' (in our case God or in a naturalistic worldview, naturalistic processes) would be responsible.

Also, God only gets credit for good, but not bad. We get blamed for the bad, but not credit for good... yet Satan is listed as tempting us. Why doesn't Satan get blamed for the bad, instead?

To a degree God will hold Satan accountable (blamed).  Here again though, Satan would only be held fully responsible for another person's actions if determinism is true.

We do need to define our terms here to avoid confusion.

Compatibilist free will-  The notion that our choices are compatible with determination.

Libertarian free will-  Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

From a Christian worldview, determinism is a result of the sovereignty of God, and in a materialistic worldview, determinism is a result of naturalistic processes.

I would like to point out here that our worldviews share the same challenge.  From a libertarian free will perspective, how can God be sovereign?  And in a materialist worldview (which is deterministic in nature), how can libertarian free will even exist?  From a compatibilist perspective, if we are predetermined (by a sovereign God or natural processes) to a certain action, can our free will be held responsible for that action?  And which answer most accurately represents reality?

further compatibilist reading

Thanks for the clarification. I'm assuming most people use the word in the libertarian sense.

No problem.  I would agree in assuming that most people use the word in the libertarian sense.  A lot of your argumentation is based upon a deterministic perspective.  In order to avoid confusion in our conversation hereafter, are we talking about free will from a libertarian, compatibilist, or deterministic perspective?

[Edwardo Piet]

The problem with Christ is that if he did exist, he was just a man with a few ideas that influenced history. At the very post.

He allegedly got crucified for it and it was written in the world's most best selling book. This is the only reason he gets so much attention.

If Jesus existed, he was nothing special at all. Sorry to burst your bubble Christians.

Oh and the golden rule predates Christianity. It's also not a helpful rule because what one person likes is not what another may like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPqVeUa_zbI

[RobbyPants]

Yes, but if we can only do good by God's acting, why doesn't he "act" more often?

That is an excellent question, but a different one than "is God responsible for my actions?"

Yes, it is different, but again, I was asking in regards to what you said:

 In this case the exemption: God is responsible when we do good, but not responsible when we do bad, is made because in one instance it is me acting, and in the other instance it is God acting.

(Emphasis mine)

Perhaps you didn't word that they way you wanted, or you worded it too strongly. When I read that, I see you saying that we do good when God acts, and we don't due to our choice. Is that what you meant?

Either way, can we only do good if God acts? Can we do bad when God acts?

No problem.  I would agree in assuming that most people use the word in the libertarian sense.  A lot of your argumentation is based upon a deterministic perspective.  In order to avoid confusion in our conversation hereafter, are we talking about free will from a libertarian, compatibilist, or deterministic perspective?

Well, going forward, I guess it depends on how you want to use the term. My OP was pointed toward the inconsistency I see broadly in apologetics. If we're talking about your beliefs, I'll need to know how you are using the term. I don't believe in God, so I don't try to reconcile the problem of evil.

[athrock]

The problem with Christ is that if he did exist, he was just a man with a few ideas that influenced history. At the very post.

He allegedly got crucified for it and it was written in the world's most best selling book. This is the only reason he gets so much attention.

If Jesus existed, he was nothing special at all. Sorry to burst your bubble Christians.

Oh and the golden rule predates Christianity. It's also not a helpful rule because what one person likes is not what another may like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPqVeUa_zbI

Whether Jesus was God or not is open to debate, but it is undeniable that he was one of the most important and influential figures in all of human history.

[Edwardo Piet]

But my point is that he doesn't deserve to be that influential because none of his ideas were particularly original. Or even profound (The golden rule as I said, has a major flaw).