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!
It wouldn’t be so bad if I hadn’t been predestined one way or the other. FMM likes to pretend that’s not actually compelling in my case, for some reason. I know I’m special and all, but….
I’m not hiding anything, Calvinism is not fatalism. You are confusing it with Islam.
I’ve quoted Calvinistic confessions of faith that affirm exactly what I’m saying here I can quote others as well. Calvinism holds that Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility are both equally true.
quote:
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
(Act 13:48)
and
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
(Act 2:23)
end quote:
Appointing is what God Does believing is what we do. You might find these things to be difficult to reconcile but God does not. It’s true that from God’s perspective if you were appointed to believe you will believe but you don’t have God’s perspective.
I’m still struck that you are totally fine with all of this when it’s an impersonal force that does the determining. It sees to me that it’s not predestination that bothers you it’s God.
I will grant that how all of this works itself out is difficult but as you so often point out we need to keep in mind that we are specks and not God.
quote:
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:32-36)
end quote:
peace
God is not compelling you, your own nature is compelling you. If anything God is preventing you from rebelling in all the ways that you would like to. It’s God’s restraining power that keeps you from abandoning logic for example.
It’s things like that that make me hopeful that there is something in there somewhere that might be open to his voice.
peace
It seems to me as much as walto is bothered by a personal God you are bothered by the absence of some sort of privileged position where you can neutrally judge the merits of theistic arguments.
Why is the presence of an epistemologically neutral perch such a big deal to you? Do you feel that it limits your autonomy in some way?
peace
God created that nature, how does God infringe our free will specifically?
So an action( the means which is apparently evil) is justified if there is a reason for to allow it ( the ends), if God uses this logic by definition it is morally good
My concern has nothing to do my personal autonomy. My concern is that if there is no epistemically neutral position from which one can evaluate theistic arguments, then democracy, equality, justice, and freedom (for all) are not possible. Either theism is itself just one more position up for grabs in the space of reasons, or non-theists are excluded from it.
You are acting as if only the Christian has the correct conception of rationality, and that gives the Christian a privileged position in any rational discourse. But in rational discourse, any and all positions are up for grabs, defending on how the giving and asking for reasons is actualized in that particular dialogic encounter.
It’s unfortunate that you are unable to see that presuppositionalism is incompatible with the pragmatic norms of rational discourse.
I don’t think of determinism as ‘predestination’ any more than a court thinks of an accidental, fatal fall as murder. Some shit happens; the adult response to that is acceptance, if possible. But when there’s intent behind the pain, I think anger and rebellion are eminently reasonable.
You’re right that I’m a speck, and there may be good reasons for the dissemination of only apparently unjustified evils. But as I have intentionally not been made privy to those quite possibly imaginary alleged reasons, again, it seems to me that only a silly, scared child would be ok with the arrangement. Hardly a grown-up way to be.
I hope it’s clear that I should have written
“IF I have intentionally not been made…..”
Or
“As on your view I have intentionally not been made….”
not quite, In the beginning Man was good but mutable
quote:
In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after His own image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin. But long he abode not in this honor
end quote:
In lots of ways
For example he ordains government and civil society that act as a governor on our passions.
peace
Again not quite, In that example the action itself is not good but allowing it would be justified.
It’s not just God we all use this logic
Amputation is not good but it’s justified to prevent the spread of gangrene. Prison is not good but it’s justified in the interest of justice. Violent force is not good but it is justified when necessary to to save lives.
peace
Please explain this claim.
Democracy, equality justice and freedom are possible not because there is some mythical epistemically neutral position but because God is a gracious God.
It’s not that the Christian has the only correct conception of rationality but that the only grounds for rationality is the Christian God.
Do you see the difference?
Is the position that “any and all positions are up for grabs” up for grabs?
peace
You were just arguing that things that are not moral agents (like bowling balls) can do moral things. Have you changed your mind?
Are you now saying that all evil in the universe is only apparent and not real since “the universe” is not personal?
Do you not think that over all the world is a good place? Do you think that you deserve better than you have gotten in this life?
Has your wife or your daughters ever asked you to trust them?
Have you ever asked someone to trust you?
peace
I think you should read those posts again a little more carefully. After doing so, please post the remark in which I said bowling balls could do moral things. I believe I said they could cause pain. If you think that’s false, drop one on your foot and report back.
Nope. Not saying that either. Have you not had your nap yet?
You argued that impersonal “evolution” could produce a universe with both good and evil aspects. Have you changed your mind?
I have been a touch under the weather for a few days so perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Please spell out to me how an impersonal thing can produce something with moral aspects (good and evil).
Hopefully you won’t have to resort to the bowling ball illustration again I have a hard time understanding it’s relevance
peace
IMO It’s not grown up at all to live your life from a posture of doubt.
It’s a profound poverty to withhold trust unless you have good reason to.
check this out
quote:
Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.
end quote:
Stephen Covey
and
Quote:
You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you don’t trust enough.
end quote:
Frank Crane
peace
Now that’s something I DO agree with!
Hope you feel better soon.
That’s a long story. Another time maybe.
I have this really awesome suspension bridge. Perfect location. I hate to have to give it up, but I think I’m going to have to for a loss because of a family emergency.
There is good reason to doubt that you really own a bridge
Has God ever given you reason not to trust him?
peace
But that is exactly what the fuss is about.
I suppose you want me to trust that you actually have an argument for how this could be the case but you just told me that it would be childish for me to do that.
peace
For what it’s worth, walto, not all Christians are Calvinists.
I wish you and your family a happy, healthy, and long life, filled with compassion and love. May evil never enter your home.
I’m sure fifth would agree.
Thanks, guys! Right back atcha!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4e/dd/bb/4eddbb9c5f657748e2fb734a8a62016e.jpg
http://www.mbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CalvinistCuriousGeorge.jpg
I truly would. I pray that God will continue to give you more Grace than any of us deserve.
Perhaps sometime you could share if you find an Arminian or Molinist God to be more worthy of worship than a Calvinist one.
I would be very interested in the opinions of a fellow Compatabilist on that question
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Are you asking mung or me? (Is mung also a compatibalist?)
That is false. Try reading a book over than the Bible. You might learn something.
No, because it is a transcendental presupposition of any rational inquiry at all.
Revelation
So you have a transcendental presupposition just like I do. OK I’d love to examine it some time. Oh that’s right we can’t examine it can we? It’s off limits According to you only other peoples transcendental presuppositions can be examined.
Why not explain how the presupposition that any and all positions (except one) are up for grabs is necessary for any rational inquiry.
Are you honestly saying that only people who accept your odd presupposition can think rationally about anything at all?
I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of humanity don’t share your presupposition what does that imply about them IYO?
I have repeatedly asked you to explain how rationality is possible with out God (how you know stuff) and you have not been able to give an answer that can stand on it’s own.
Are you now saying that even though you can’t articulate the answer it can be found somewhere “in a book”?
Interesting
Which one? what page?
peace
You. I believe I know what Mung thinks about this one.
On the other hand I’m really fascinated that despite being a compatibilist you reject determinism if there is a personal God behind it all.
I wonder if you would find a God who is not totally Sovereign to be more worthy of worship.
peace
I’ll have to read the wiki articles on those positions and get back to you.
I don’t ‘reject determinism if there’s a personal God behind it.’ I’m not sure an omni God is consistent with determinism, but as I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe in God–omni or hemi-demi, I think determinism has bigger problems (particularly with QM) to deal with. It’s certainly not an apparent contradiction I would spend much time thinking about myself. It’s a mildly interesting scholastic puzzle, I guess.
Interesting. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. It seems to me that the only way a god could be omni is if he was in control of everything. Are you saying that God can’t be all good if he is in total control?
It seems that when it comes to these questions there are three kinds of folks
1) folks who dislike any form of determinism (Mung would be in this category)
2) folks who dislike impersonal materialistic determinism ( I’m in this camp)
3) folks who dislike determinism if God is involved but have no objections to non-personal forces determining everything that happens. ( I think you are in this camp)
I’ve had lots of interaction with groups one and two but next to zero with number three. Is the presence of apparent evil in the universe that you find objectionable or the lack of libertarian free will?
peace
I’m really just repeating the problem of evil. As far as I can see, it’s basically the same problem for an omni God whether or not determinism is true.
ETA: As i’ve said, our speckishness seems to me to prevent the problem of evil from disproving the existence of God. But it is sufficient to cause doubt, determinism or no determinism.
I don’t think your (3) makes sense. But maybe it depends on what you mean by somebody ‘having problems’ with some theory.
I’m aware of the discussion around QM but I think you agree that it’s pretty much irrelevant when it comes to Compatabilism verses LWF.
If the universe contained a good portion of true randomness it would negate God’s Sovereignty and omniscience but it would not make LFW any more coherent in my opinion. Especially if we adopt Dembski’s understanding of randomness.
peace
Does the doubt come from the fact that you are unaware of the justification for allowing evil? If a decent theodicy were available would it change your mind?
If so what sort of “reasons for allowing evil” would you find to be more attractive?
peace
I mean something like. “It would suck if it were true”
peace
FMM, you and I occupy such different wavelengths that it is often difficult for us to communicate. (That’s not a criticism, just a note about translation issues.) E.g.,
To the extent that the universe is random, I don’t think it makes sense to say we are free (that view may be contrary to libertarianism). Compatibalism requires the view that we are free. Thus randomness is contrary to compatibalism. I don’t get the God biz in that post.
This is just a matter of whether it’s in fact the case that the best possible world requires precisely the level of evil that we have. I don’t think we can know this and the burden is on theists to prove it (in a non-question-begging manner).
From my perspective, it makes sense to be angry and rebellious if shit happens to one as a result of an intention for it to happen–especially if we are not given information that shows that the world benefits from that particular piece of shit. But whether or not one should be angry and rebellious, it sucks if, e.g, your kid gets cancer. What makes the world suck is bad things happening to you or those you love. What would make it EVIL is somebody doing it to us on purpose without having a good reason.
ETA: I changed “is contrary to libertarianism” with “may be contrary to libertarianism.” I did so because I guess agent causation might not be thought to be an instance of “randomness” even if it’s contrary to determinism. So it wasn’t fair of me to suggest that libertarianism is necessarily a position involving randomness. However, maybe those libertarians that rely on (handy-dandy) wave function collapse can be justly charged with pushing randomness as an alternative to compatibalism.
From your perspective does it make sense to be grateful and happy if good things happen to you that you don’t deserve?
Would you say your life is more characterized by undeserved grace or “sh*t” ?
Of course you know that I believe I know why “sh*t” happens
And I also know that the grace you and I receive every day instead of “sh*t” is because God takes on himself the “sh*t” you and I deserve.
All of that information is contained in something we Christians call the Gospel (good news)
peace
I agree that those things make the world less desirable than we wish it was but life no matter how difficult and terrible is always better than the alternative we deserve.
peace
Hah! I guess YES to both. But I’m kind of a shithead. That’s not true of everybody I know.
I think “original sin” is silly. To give one example, one of my daughters has an absolutely spotless “soul.” Anything bad happening to her would be gratuitous cruelty. She deserves everything good–more than she’s had.
Maybe that you and I deserve.
What did a two year old do to deserve a lingering and painful death? Be born?
1) Ever hear of theological federalism?
2) Do you think life is an entitlement?
peace
Can you see her soul?
I’m sure she is an angel but I don’t think that means she alone deserves to have the 2nd law suspended indefinitely.
Did you watch the video that I linked to that discussed Van gogh as a way of illustrating the relationship between God and suffering? I think you might it interesting.
peace
Me too! I guess that’s why I love you walto. 🙂
Don’t Call That Dog Lifesaver
Especially me !!
however there is this
quote:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
(Rom 3:23)
and
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
(Rom 11:32)
and
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(Gal 3:22)
and
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.
(Psa 143:2)
and
Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
(Job 4:17)
and
How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?
(Job 25:4)
and
If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?
(Psa 130:3)
end quote:
I think we humans in general tend to arrogantly compare ourselves with ourselves and conclude that since there are worse folks that we are not so bad
We are not the standard.
peace
“Original sin” is just God judging humanity by the actions of one representative individual
Think about it logically for a minute
If you question the wisdom and fairness of God testing all humanity by the actions of that one person (Adam) then you demonstrate that you would have done just what Adam did in not trusting God and prove that God was correct in his actions .
On the other hand if you were to trust that God did the right thing even if you didn’t understand it would demonstrate that in this one case at least you weren’t like Adam.
It’s sort of a catch 22
The very fact that you find original sin to be “silly” unintentionally proves that God was right to do what he did
peace
“Original sin” is the theological claim that God is completely and utterly evil. That’s why I never accepted it back when I was a theist.
What theological claims did you accept back when you were a theist? And what theological claims do you accept now as an atheist?
I accepted the broad picture of God as creator (old earth creationism). And I admired the moral teachings of Jesus.
There’s no reason to accept any. But I still retain some admiration for the moral teachings of Jesus.
I have no idea what I am in this debate other than that I did some studying of Calvinism and rejected it.
I don’t dislike determinism. It comes in quite handy at times. 🙂