Evil and the Free Will Defense

[Skwim]

The defense is an argument first made by Alvin Plantinga in 1977 against the logical problem of evil as formulated by philosopher J. L. Mackie beginning in 1955. The problem can be stated as.

1. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
2. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
4. There is evil in the world​

As may be apparent, it shows that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology. Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory. The problem is such that a contradiction exists between these propositions, so that if any three of them were true the fourth would be false."
Source: Wikipedia

Plantinga's summarized his defense as:

"A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."
Source: Wikipedia​

Or as further summarized

God allows evil for the sake of our free will.
Free will is a great good, and it is
impossible for God to give us free will
without allowing evil. So, God allows evil to exist
source​

Free will gives evil a reason for being, and has also been phrased as:

"God created evil so that we could then choose between good and evil, and make moral choices. If all choices result in good, there would be no moral choices. If love is acceptable, it must be chosen over hate and therefore evil and suffering result when we make morally poor choices."
source​

In short: We have evil in the world so free will can exist.

But is Plantinga's reasoning that free will is necessary so as to create creatures capable of moral good the true reason? I don't believe so. Other than functioning to supposedly explain away Mackie's problem of evil, I believe free will is far more essential to give meaning to sin and salvation. Without free will the two are meaningless concepts. After all the concept of morality only exists because of evil. Take away evil and there's no need for the concept of moral good. All our actions would, by default, be "morally" good. His statement that "Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right." rings hollow in light of the fact that sans evil we wouldn't be doing wrong in the first place. So I don't believe Plantinga's argument holds water at all, and that Mackie's problem remains a problem.
Go ahead and assert that free will exists so as to give meaning to sin and salvation and everything else we do, but don't try using it to explain away evil.


Addendum in case the nature of free will gets bandied about.
In discussing free will several different notions of it pop up from time to time so I think it should be remembered that.

WILL: The capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

FREE WILL: The ability to choose between different possible courses of action.*​

My favorite definition of free will: The ability to have done differently.


* These are not my definitions.

.

 

[pearl]

The culprit in the mix is #2. Evil is a spinoff of life, the human condition.
Something to consider; two pools, one of the clearest and purest water, the other toxic and poisonous. In themselves they are neither good nor bad. Now intro a living creature who depends on it to sustain life. The pools, in the absence of life were neither good not bad, are now life giving or life threatening, good or evil. Whatever we perceive harmful to our being is evil. Referred to as epiphenomenon, incidental, secondary occurrence in conjunction with a primary occurrence, the prior condition. Life is the prior condition for evil.

 

[Skwim]

The culprit in the mix is #2. Evil is a spinoff of life, the human condition.
Something to consider; two pools, one of the clearest and purest water, the other toxic and poisonous. In themselves they are neither good nor bad. Now intro a living creature who depends on it to sustain life. The pools, in the absence of life were neither good not bad, are now life giving or life threatening, good or evil. Whatever we perceive harmful to our being is evil. Referred to as epiphenomenon, incidental, secondary occurrence in conjunction with a primary occurrence, the prior condition. Life is the prior condition for evil.

While it's quite common to call bad non-human events "evil," this is not the kind of evil Plantinga is addressing, which is moral evil. In fact in the first link I mentioned it's said that;

"Plantinga puts forth a defense, offering a new proposition that is intended to demonstrate that it is logically possible for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God to create a world that contains moral evil.
source

.​

 

[blü 2]

" 1. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
2. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
4. There is evil in the world​

a contradiction exists between these propositions, so that if any three of them were true the fourth would be false."

This of course is a form of the argument attributed to >Epicurus<, sometimes set out like this:

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is god both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?​

I've never seen a satisfactory reply to it.

So I agree with you.

 

[pearl]

this is not the kind of evil Plantinga is addressing, which is moral evil.

Which always is the free, deliberate and unjustified intention and/or action of inflicting evil (ontic) on oneself or others. Were it not for the fact that we humans are subject to evil moral evil would not be possible. Nothing is morally evil because God forbids it, but that God forbids it because it is morally evil because it perpetrates an unjustified ontic evil. To hold that God can arbitrarily make evil whatever he feels like is nonsense.

 

[Skwim]

Which always is the free, deliberate and unjustified intention and/or action of inflicting evil (ontic) on oneself or others.

Okay.

Were it not for the fact that we humans are subject to evil moral evil would not be possible.

If humans never existed moral evil would be a meaningless term. But if one likes the word "evil" and feels like using it to describe conditions other than the the actions of humans, go right ahead. Call your computer evil when it screws up, if you like, or call the fish who won't take your bait evil if it makes you happy.

Thing is, evil is commonly a deed or action attributed to sentient beings such as humans, gods, demons, etc.

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil

1. 1.profoundly immoral and malevolent.

noun: evil

1. 1.profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
   
   

Nothing is morally evil because God forbids it, but that God forbids it because it is morally evil because it perpetrates an unjustified ontic evil.

Actually, the nexus of his forbidding comes down to warnings: do these things and you'll suffer my consequences. And some of the things he warns of are in Mark 7:20-23. Things he, as Jesus, calls evils.

"He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”​

Furthermore, god created humans with the propensity to disobey his laws: "acting against the law of God." He could have created humans without such a propensity. We would always be in tune with his wishes, always acting in accord with his law, and other than for acts of nature, we would live trouble free lives. We would freely choose this or that but never have any desire to choose to disobey god. Just as we never have any desire to walk in front of a speeding train and expect survive---the few mentally ill excepted.

Catholic Dictionary
Term
MORAL EVIL

Definition
Sin, as distinct from physical evil, which is some form of suffering. It is evil because it is contrary to the will of God; it is moral evil because it is caused by a free created will acting against the law of God, who does not want moral evil as an end or as a means. The Council of Trent condemned the contrary doctrine (Denzinger 816). God simply permits moral evil because of consideration of human freedom, and because he has the wisdom and power to cause good to arise from evil. In the end, moral evil will serve the supreme purpose of the universe, the glorification of God, since it reveals his mercy in forgiving and his justice in punishing.
source

​

To hold that God can arbitrarily make evil whatever he feels like is nonsense.

Who is saying that god's actions are arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"? What we can say is that god has designated the commission of certain acts as evil. And having created us with a propensity to do some of them, and therefore set ourselves up for his punishment, he knows that some of us will fail his "test" and go to hell, which in my mind hardly makes him a benevolent god.

.

​

 

[pearl]

The problem is not solved, it is dissolved.



Because theodicies, as theories are not a solution but are part of the problem. Their attempt to explain God's reasons for allowing evil in the world creates myths that make God ultimately responsible for evil. They are false in that they claim to know God's reasons and also create a world that denies the existence of social sin.

Logical defenses show it is possible to believe without contradictions two propositions that only seem contradictory; that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and that there is evil in the world. The reality of God may be affirmed and recognize the reality of evil, without a theory to explain why God allows evil in the world. A theodicy offers a theory to explain why God allows evils. A defense simply shows that two propositions p and q are logically compatible. The defense does not explain what God does, but simply shows that the believer is not irrational in holding both propositions. Logic of the free will defense is clear;

p God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent

q There is genuine evil in the actual world.

The 'problem' of evil is that these propositions seem incompatible, contradictory. It is logically the case that if there is a possibly true proposition r that combined with p entails q, then p and q are not contradictory, but compatible. So consider r, which would do the job;

r All the genuine evil in the world is the result of the choices of creatures with free will.

The point is that r has to be possibly true, not actually true. One may think r is false while recognizing that it could possibly be true. But why think r is possibly true, couldn't God know how to make free creatures not produce evil?

Now consider s; An omnipotent God cannot make creatures such that they always freely choose the good. What s does is to show that it is logically contradictory to think God can control the choices of free creatures. God could make creatures always choose the good or God could make creatures free. Either God is in control and creatures are not free, or the creatures are free but God cannot be in control. Since s must be true (a logical point), r is possibly true, p and q are both possibly true and compatible with each other. Put together p, q, r, s; even an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God could not make the world such that God could make it both with free creatures who are free and without evil.

reference: Terrence Tilley "Doing Theology in the Context of the Gift"

 

[pearl]

Almost all contemporary theodicies are closely bound up with a widespread but unfortunate theological assumption about the implications of human free will. This concept is in one way or another central to almost all contemporary theodicies, whether directly or clothed in broader notions of soul-making character-decelopment. God cannot bring about a world in which a good exercise of human freedom, correct moral choices, loving actions and relationships, a positive turning towards God, are possible, without giving human beings a freedom which inevitably they can use to do ill.

Human freedom requires God's non-involvement, at least at the moment of choice, this freedom is also where one major source of evil comes in. An action cannot be free and determined at the same time, its either free, or it is caused but not both.

Questions, concrete and theological versions of the so-called 'problem of evil' ought to be acknowledged as completely legitimate and as utterly unanswerable.

http://www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Kilby_EvilandLimits.pdf

 

[DennisTate]

How valuable is freedom of choice?

Is it one of the only ways to really learn about power.... and responsibility... and the consequences of our actions?

Genuine freedom of choice... implies the possibility to choose to do evil.

Reverend Howard Storm's Near-Death Experience

They replied, "We want you to do what you want to do. That means making choices and there isn't necessarily any right choice. There are a spectrum of possibilities, and you should make the best choice you can from those possibilities. If you do that, we will be there helping you."

 

[Skwim]

How valuable is freedom of choice?

In as much as it's merely an illusion, not at all. Oh yes, it does give people reason to disparage and hate.

Is it one of the only ways to really learn about power.... and responsibility... and the consequences of our actions?

Absolutely not. When one realizes there's no such thing as choosing, responsibility and the consequences of our actions take on a whole different meaning.

Genuine freedom of choice... implies the possibility to choose to do evil.

Which is why evil doesn't exist where freedom of choice doesn't exist.

Reverend Howard Storm's Near-Death Experience

.​

 

[DennisTate]

In as much as it's merely an illusion, not at all.


Absolutely not. When one realizes there's no such thing as choosing, responsibility and the consequences of our actions take on a whole different meaning.


Which is why evil doesn't exist where freedom of choice doesn't exist.

.​

I suppose freedom of choice isn't absolute or total.......
but it is real and the power that we do have to make choices can have an astonishing effect on how the future works out.

The Future and the Near-Death Experience

3. The future is not fixed and can change

During Karen Schaeffer's NDE, she was shown her children's future as it would exist if she decided to remain in the light. Because she decided to return, the future she was shown did not happen. This suggests that the future is always changing from moment to moment based upon our current actions and decisions. This principle supports quantum mechanic principles.

One of Margot Grey's NDE research subjects stated:


"During my experience ... I was also shown events that are likely to happen in the near future, but was made to understand that nothing is absolutely fixed and that everything depends on how we choose to use our own free will, that even those events that are already predestined can be changed or modified by a change in our own way of relating to them." (Grey, 1985, p. 123)

NDE experiencer Howard Storm was given information on how the future is not fixed:


"We have free will. If we change the way we are, then we can change the future which they showed me. They showed me a view of the future, at the time of my experience, based upon how we in the United States were behaving at that time. It was a future in which a massive worldwide depression would occur. If we were to change our behavior, however, then the future would be different." (Howard Storm)

Howard Storm was also told how a single person can change the world:


"All it takes to make a change was one person. One person, trying, and then because of that, another person changing for the better. They said that the only way to change the world was to begin with one person. One will become two, which will become three, and so on. That's the only way to affect a major change" (Howard Storm)

During Ricky Randolph's NDE, he was told virtually the same thing:


"You must return and help others to change by changing your life!" (Ricky Randolph)

Dannion Brinkley was told how the future is conditional upon human beings:


"If you follow what you have been taught and keep living the same way you have lived the last thirty years, all of this will surely be upon you. If you change, you can avoid the coming war. If you follow this dogma, the world by the year 2004 will not be the same one you now know. But it can still be changed and you can help change it." (Dannion Brinkley)


Brinkley was also told that the future is not cast in stone:


"The flow of human events can be changed, but first people have to know what they are." (Dannion Brinkley)

 

[pearl]

Absolutely not. When one realizes there's no such thing as choosing, responsibility and the consequences of our actions take on a whole different meaning.

Isn't that backwards? One ought to consider the alternatives and consequences before making the choice.

 

[Skwim]

Isn't that backwards? One ought to consider the alternatives and consequences before making the choice.

But there's no such thing as making a choice. Choices are illusionary.

.

 

[pearl]

But there's no such thing as making a choice. Choices are illusionary.

Did you not just make a choice as to respond or not?

 

[Mister Emu]

Take away evil and there's no need for the concept of moral good. All our actions would, by default, be "morally" good.

Without the possibility of the choice of evil, there is no moral good. It can be said that a world without moral good is not as "good" as one with, therefore the "problem" of evil is solved. You don't have to agree that it is better to have free will than to remove all evil to recognize Platinga's defense is successful in addressing the proposed contradiction.

 

[Skwim]

Without the possibility of the choice of evil, there is no moral good.

Which is why free will is an imperative to Christianity. Christianity absolutely requires the concept of free will to make sin and salvation meaningful, which is why it's so vociferously defended.

It can be said that a world without moral good is not as "good" as one with, therefore the "problem" of evil is solved.

Okay. What is the nature of the "good" in a world lacking moral good? And what, exactly, is the "problem" of evil?

You don't have to agree that it is better to have free will than to remove all evil to recognize Platinga's defense is successful in addressing the proposed contradiction.

Truthfully, such "better" is inconsequential to the issue. The consequence of determinism is what it is, like it or not.

.

 

[Skwim]

Did you not just make a choice as to respond or not?

Nope. the reason I responded, and as I did, was because I could do no differently. I had to do so. Choosing was not at all involved. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's no such thing as choosing.

.

 

[Mister Emu]

Which is why free will is an imperative to Christianity. Christianity absolutely requires the concept of free will to make sin and salvation meaningful, which is why it's so vociferously defended

That is hardly relevant to the resolution of the problem of evil.

And what, exactly, is the "problem" of evil?

I'd refer you to your own original post. The proposed contradiction between an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator god and the presence of evil.

 

[Apologes]

Morality doesn't depend on free will, moral responsibility does. Completely deterministic creatures can still do moral or immoral acts but they would not be held morally responsible for them.

If God wanted moral agents capable of growth and responsibility he would need to give them free will.