The ‘problem of evil’ is a perpetual thorn in the side of the omnitheist — that is, someone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. For if God is perfectly good and all-powerful, why does he allow so much evil in the world? He’s powerful enough to eradicate it; and if he’s perfectly good, he should want to eradicate it. So why doesn’t he?
One response, known as the ‘Free Will Defense’, comes from Alvin Plantinga:
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.
Plantinga’s position has multiple problems and shortcomings, which we’ll no doubt end up discussing in the comment thread, but for now I want to present an argument against the Free Will Defense that is similar to an argument I’ve been making in the purpose of theistic evolution thread.
Let’s assume for the purposes of this OP that libertarian free will exists and that humans possess it. (It’s actually incoherent and therefore impossible, but that’s a separate topic.)
Here’s how I presented the argument back in 2012, in a comment addressed to Mung:
You haven’t thought this through. An omniscient and omnipotent God could prevent rapes from happening, and he could even prevent the desire to rape from happening, all without controlling anyone’s thoughts and desires.
Here’s how it would work. Suppose God creates each person with free will, so that everything he or she does during life is freely chosen. If God is omniscient, he knows what all of those choices will be before the person is even created. If God simply chooses not to create the people who will go on to commit rape (or even experience the desire to commit rape), then he has prevented those things from happening without depriving anyone of their free will.
If you object that selective creation would deprive the uncreated people of their free will, then you run into a big problem: There are already zillions of uncreated people for every person who is actually born. If leaving a person uncreated violates his or her free will, then God is already massively guilty of denying free will to zillions of uncreated people. The objection thus undermines the assumption that free will is important to God, which is the basis for the whole argument in the first place!
I completely disagree with you that the problem of evil is a problem for theists, for a number of reasons I have given you before. You have never given any response about what a world which allows free will, and which people are immortal would be like without evil.
Thus the problem of evil, or rather of no evil, is more of a problem for the person looking to make that critique. You have another chance keiths, what is permissible in your world, in which no evil exists?
phoodoo:
People would have free will, they’d be immortal, and there wouldn’t be any evil. What’s your point?
You haven’t made that case. At all.
‘Permissible’ in what sense?
Instead of asking odd questions, why not just make an argument?
Somewhat off-topic, but here’s an argument for why theodicy is immoral.
keiths,
What do you mean there would be no evil keiths? If you fell, would you scrape your knee?
I agree the so called “problem of evil” is no problem at all for theists.
It basically boils down to atheists complaining based on their subjective opinion and limited information that they could have done a better job of creating the universe.
It’s laughable if you take a moment to think about it.
quote:
Job 38:1-41
(1) Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
(2) “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
(3) Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me.
(4) “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
(5) Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
(6) On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
(7) when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(8) “Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb,
(9) when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band,
(10) and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors,
(11) and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’?
(12) “Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
(13) that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
(14) It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.
(15) From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.
(16) “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
(17) Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
(18) Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth? Declare, if you know all this.
(19) “Where is the way to the dwelling of light, and where is the place of darkness,
(20) that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?
(21) You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!
(22) “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
(23) which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?
(24) What is the way to the place where the light is distributed, or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?
(25) “Who has cleft a channel for the torrents of rain and a way for the thunderbolt,
(26) to bring rain on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man,
(27) to satisfy the waste and desolate land, and to make the ground sprout with grass?
(28) “Has the rain a father, or who has begotten the drops of dew?
(29) From whose womb did the ice come forth, and who has given birth to the frost of heaven?
(30) The waters become hard like stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.
(31) “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?
(32) Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children?
(33) Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?
(34) “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that a flood of waters may cover you?
(35) Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?
(36) Who has put wisdom in the inward parts or given understanding to the mind?
(37) Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
(38) when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?
(39) “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
(40) when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in their thicket?
(41) Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help, and wander about for lack of food?
end quote:
peace
Is “evil” just another way to say “the things that keiths’s dislikes”?
Why should anyone care about your opinion?
peace
Keiths said
If God simply chooses not to create the people who will go on to commit rape (or even experience the desire to commit rape), then he has prevented those things from happening without depriving anyone of their free will.
I say,
If God chose not to create anyone inclined to do evil no one other than God would ever exist.
peace
So far the counterarguments are “everything’s for the best in this best of all possible worlds” and “God moves in mysterious ways”. Not impressed.
John Harshman,
Gee, I haven’t read that here yet. Do you read?
Why isn’t this just begging the question?–
I mean, that HAS to be right if Plantinga’s God exists–yes. But the claim is that because there’s evil, no such God DOES exist.
That has to be the stupidest comment I have read here since Joe stopped commenting. What does a scraped knee have to do with evil?
I think he’s talking about gratuitous pain there. Like an earthquake can be considered “evil” if thousands of innocent people are killed or injured.
Acartia,
Its stupid to ask keiths what his evil-less world would look like?
I disagree.
Yep.
Heaven is a realm where everyone freely chooses the good so it’s not like such a world is logically impossible (and I doubt Plantinga would argue Heaven is less valuable than Earth).
Also, if moral goodness is only possible with an ability to choose evil then we can safely rule out any notion of God’s ‘goodness’.
The “problem of evil” is a problem for atheists.
I likewise never received a response from keiths about why he thinks rape is evil. I don’t know why he keeps bringing it up.
Is rape evil, keiths, and if so, why is rape evil?
It’s not about you
peace
I agree with walto.
[ETA: But not of my own volition.]
What sort of answer would you expect an intelligent person to give to that question, Mung?
Where on earth did you hear that?
peace
me too.
peace
One who is also honest?
Revelation.
Who said that? Maybe CHOOSING moral goodness is only possible with an ability to choose.
Plantinga.
quote with notation please.
When I read about heaven in Revelation I find this
quote:
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
(Rev 12:7-8)
end quote:
I know it’s apocalyptic language but sure does not sound like everyone in heaven freely chooses the good.
peace
It still amazes me that folks don’t get what Plantinga did.
He did not offer a theodicy. What he did was offer a slam dunk defeater to the “logical” problem of evil that says that God can’t be all good an all powerful and allow evil to exist
Plantinga’s defeater looks like this
It’s logically possible that God had sufficient reason to allow evil
It’s that simple but it’s impeccable in it’s logic
It’s now up to the “skeptic” to disprove the defeater.
good luck with that.
peace
Whoooosh!
It’s a good job I wasn’t referring to Plantinga’s FWD then wasn’t it?
sorry that I assumed that when you referenced Plantinga with out qualification in a thread about his defense that you would have that in mind
peace
I’ve never understood why it’s supposed to be that non-theists aren’t entitled to use moral terms like “good” or “evil”.
Sure they are entitled, so why don’t they? I asked keiths if Is rape evil, and if so, to explain why rape is evil. He was entitled to answer, but he declined. I guess he’s also entitled to decline to answer. “Fair Witness” didn’t answer either.
It’s what I mean when I say “the problem of evil” is a problem for atheists. Likewise “the problem of good.” In a universe without good [or evil], there simply is no good [or evil].
Mung,
Being wrong is worse than not knowing, I think.
It’s about perspective, terms like good and evil only make sense in the objective. For the non-theist this perspective does not exist.
When the non-theist says evil what he really means is something like “not desirable in my opinion”. That is not what the rest of the world means by the term.
peace
Is rape evil, Richardthughes? If rape is evil, what is it that makes it evil?
There’s no logical [rational] reason you can’t say so. You’re certainly entitled to say.
I feel it is based on empathy.
*spoiler alert* – for you it may or may not be: http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/20-14.htm
Why don’t you feel empathy for the rapist?
That’s all completely false. Nothing is evil or good because of some deity. That idea is the height of absurdity.
In any case, it seems like some of the theists here are too confused to use them sensibly. They see that not even an omnipotent being can make a rock too big for anything to lift, but they seem to think that something can make what is bad good or vice versa. And if, as some of the non-theists here think, nothing is actually/objectively good or evil, then c’est la vie. I don’t agree with them, but god has nothing to do with any of this. Things aren’t good becase god commands them. Socrates explained this a long time ago.
The idea that every fucking question is theological is silly and immature. Just because C.S. Lewis was a dimwit doesn’t mean every other theist has to be one too, does it?
walto,
Right. The objectivity of morality has nothing to do with whether God exists or doesn’t exist.
ok, so what are the alternatives?
1. Nothing is either evil or good.
2. Evil and good exist because some humans say so, while other humans deny that good and evil exist, and we should believe that evil and good exist because …
Please tell keiths.
Is rape evil? If so, why?
Mung,
We still don’t even know if rape is allowed in keiths evil-less world. I guess its just one more of the free wills he wants to remove. I wonder what choices will be left. Giving your neighbors cotton candy or a fruit basket?
The definition of doing bad will be..”Do you know Gladys gave me a fruit basket, when I wanted cotton candy! Can you believe that?? The nerve. “
phoodoo:
keiths:
phoodoo:
You were the one who stipulated it, doofus:
A world without evil, like the one you just stipulated, would have no evil in it.
The terms are vacuous when used by them, because they cannot mean anything better than “I like” and “I don’t like”. If this is understood, they are fully entitled to use them. But this applies with defenders of relative morality (or those who have no theory of morality) rather than non-theists.
phoodoo,
This thread is about the Free Will Defense, which concerns moral evil, not natural evil.
But to answer your question, it would depend on God’s moral system. If he regarded it as immoral to allow preventable suffering, then no, you wouldn’t scrape your knee — or at least it wouldn’t hurt if you did.
A common theistic mistake, which has already been made more than once in this thread, is to think that the problem of evil somehow hinges on the atheist’s own standards of morality. It doesn’t.
From an old thread:
Plantinga’s point is (seems to be) twofold:
1. Evil exists because of free will.
2. Free will weighs up evil, i.e. free will is good, at least better to have it than not, despite the consequent room for evil.
Had God created a perfectly good world so that nobody could do evil, atheists would complain about lack of choices. They always find a way to blame God, even though God supposedly doesn’t exist.
That’s what Sam Harris lists among his examples of evil anyways.
fifth:
No, it has nothing to do with that. It’s telling that in your very first comment on this thread, you resort to bashing a straw man.
The problem of evil has you spooked, doesn’t it? And for good reason.
Says fifth, while completely failing to back up his assertion.
walto,
It isn’t begging the question, because Plantinga’s FWD isn’t aimed at demonstrating the existence of such a God. It merely aims to show that such a God is logically possible.
If my argument is correct, it fails to achieve even that modest goal.
Sad. (Hi, Donald! Did you have a good week?)