Is "free will" really a good answer to the problem of evil?

[NowHereThis]

The problem of evil declares that there is a logical contradiction between the creation of the world by a perfectly moral being and the existence of evil in that creation. In order to be perfectly moral, a creator being would have to act to prevent or heal any evil that might occur or threaten to occur if it has the power to do so. Since evil clearly exists in our world, God is either not perfectly moral or lacks sufficient power to prevent evil. In either case, the traditional God of Christian theology does not logically exist.

The common response to this argument is that God cannot act to prevent all evil because it would necessarily conflict with the existence of free will in humanity. If it is impossible to choose evil, then that would make human beings robots rather than moral agents. They could neither be blamed for doing wrong or praised for doing right. Therefore, for the sake of attaining the greater good of the existence of moral agents, God must permit evil.

However, the free will response presumes that free will is most important when it is being used by human beings to do evil. The freedom of the oppressor or whomever must be preserved. But what about the victim? The victim has a will as well. The victim’s will is to be free of the oppressor. Does God not value that will? Christian tradition teaches that God stands on the side of the lowly and the despised. It would therefore be in character for God to stand on the side of the will of the victim, against the will of the oppressor. The “free will” defense to the problem of evil turns this picture on its head. God is made to stand on the side of the oppressor, because that is the de facto outcome of non-intervention. In this scenario, someone’s will is getting infringed upon, and the only question is whether God wants that infringed will to be the oppressor’s or the oppressed.

 

[revert_jen]

However, the free will response presumes that free will is most important when it is being used by human beings to do evil. The freedom of the oppressor or whomever must be preserved. But what about the victim? The victim has a will as well. The victim’s will is to be free of the oppressor. Does God not value that will?

I think you misunderstand what “Will” is in this context. It is not just a desire or wish. Free will is the ability to choose from among the available actions and bear the responsibility for the consequenses of those actions. If someone uses his free will to imprison me unjustly, I still have my free will in entirety. I have fewer available actions to choose from, but I still have the ability to choose some that are good and some that are evil.

Christian tradition teaches that God stands on the side of the lowly and the despised. It would therefore be in character for God to stand on the side of the will of the victim, against the will of the oppressor. The “free will” defense to the problem of evil turns this picture on its head. God is made to stand on the side of the oppressor, because that is the de facto outcome of non-intervention.

You also seem to think that people only use their free will for evil. At least that is how it is sounding from your post. The fact is, that if your evil actions have no evil consequences, they are not evil actions, and hence you do not have the choice to choose good or evil. And by no means are all evil acts the acts of oppressors against victims, or at least often the oppressor and the victim are the same person.

In this scenario, someone’s will is getting infringed upon, and the only question is whether God wants that infringed will to be the oppressor’s or the oppressed.

No, the question is whether God wants actions to have their necessary consequences. How would anyone avoid evil actions if the consequences weren’t present? If I could smack someone upside the head every time I thought they needed it, and do it knowing it wouldn’t actually hurt the person because God wouldn’t let it, I would be doing it all the time. As it is, the knowledge of the negative consequences for the “oppressed” is what keepos me from ever doing it. Besides, where would it stop? How would I have ever learned to control my sarcasm (I said control, not eliminate ) as a child if I never saw that it hurt someone? Why would I ever bother to learn to be kind if nobody can ever be hurt?

So I think that the answer to the question in the title of the thread is, “Yes, it is.”

–Jen

 

[ColdComfort]

The problem of evil declares that there is a logical contradiction between the creation of the world by a perfectly moral being and the existence of evil in that creation. In order to be perfectly moral, a creator being would have to act to prevent or heal any evil that might occur or threaten to occur if it has the power to do so. Since evil clearly exists in our world, God is either not perfectly moral or lacks sufficient power to prevent evil. In either case, the traditional God of Christian theology does not logically exist.

The common response to this argument is that God cannot act to prevent all evil because it would necessarily conflict with the existence of free will in humanity. If it is impossible to choose evil, then that would make human beings robots rather than moral agents. They could neither be blamed for doing wrong or praised for doing right. Therefore, for the sake of attaining the greater good of the existence of moral agents, God must permit evil.

However, the free will response presumes that free will is most important when it is being used by human beings to do evil. The freedom of the oppressor or whomever must be preserved. But what about the victim? The victim has a will as well. The victim’s will is to be free of the oppressor. Does God not value that will? Christian tradition teaches that God stands on the side of the lowly and the despised. It would therefore be in character for God to stand on the side of the will of the victim, against the will of the oppressor. The “free will” defense to the problem of evil turns this picture on its head. God is made to stand on the side of the oppressor, because that is the de facto outcome of non-intervention. In this scenario, someone’s will is getting infringed upon, and the only question is whether God wants that infringed will to be the oppressor’s or the oppressed.

What a snoozer this straw man is. At any rate your last paragraph confuses free will and power.

 

[NowHereThis]

I think you misunderstand what “Will” is in this context. It is not just a desire or wish. Free will is the ability to choose from among the available actions and bear the responsibility for the consequenses of those actions. If someone uses his free will to imprison me unjustly, I still have my free will in entirety. I have fewer available actions to choose from, but I still have the ability to choose some that are good and some that are evil.

So an oppressor can reduce someone’s options without reducing their free will. Therefore, God could also reduce the options of oppressors without reducing their free will, right?

You also seem to think that people only use their free will for evil. At least that is how it is sounding from your post. The fact is, that if your evil actions have no evil consequences, they are not evil actions, and hence you do not have the choice to choose good or evil. And by no means are all evil acts the acts of oppressors against victims, or at least often the oppressor and the victim are the same person.

So what if God prevented evil acts, but not evil thoughts? (“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:28) In other words, God prevents all rapes, but allows potential rapists to freely commit the sin of thinking about raping. Then there is still a free will choice for good or evil, and suffering is prevented.

No, the question is whether God wants actions to have their necessary consequences. How would anyone avoid evil actions if the consequences weren’t present? If I could smack someone upside the head every time I thought they needed it, and do it knowing it wouldn’t actually hurt the person because God wouldn’t let it, I would be doing it all the time. As it is, the knowledge of the negative consequences for the “oppressed” is what keepos me from ever doing it. Besides, where would it stop? How would I have ever learned to control my sarcasm (I said control, not eliminate ) as a child if I never saw that it hurt someone? Why would I ever bother to learn to be kind if nobody can ever be hurt?

So I think that the answer to the question in the title of the thread is, “Yes, it is.”

I think you would stop when you saw that your actions weren’t having the hurtful effects you wanted. So smack away (in this scenario), you’d get bored with it eventually.

 

[NowHereThis]

What a snoozer this straw man is. At any rate your last paragraph confuses free will and power.

If free will and power are not the same, could God remove the power of rapists to rape and still leave their free will intact?

 

[revert_jen]

So an oppressor can reduce someone’s options without reducing their free will. Therefore, God could also reduce the options of oppressors without reducing their free will, right?

There is a difference between natural operations and supernatural operations. If you can think of a way humand could be created such that nobody could rape, without debilitating the entire human race, you’re smarter than I am. People cannot separate actions from the consequences of those actions, which is what you are asking God to do.

So what if God prevented evil acts, but not evil thoughts? (“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:28) In other words, God prevents all rapes, but allows potential rapists to freely commit the sin of thinking about raping. Then there is still a free will choice for good or evil, and suffering is prevented.

Sorry, I’m not with you. I’m not sure that a person would be able to freely think about performing an action that it isn’t possible for any member of the human race to perform under any circumstances. I mean they could contemplate it, the same way I could contemplate flying, but they couldn’t think about actually doing it, because how would anyone know what that even meant.

I think you would stop when you saw that your actions weren’t having the hurtful effects you wanted. So smack away (in this scenario), you’d get bored with it eventually.

That’s only assuming that I am being sarcastic or smacking someone upside the head with the sole purpose of having hurtful effects. I wasn’t, and I wouldn’t be. And stopping performing evil actions because you have performed so many that you are now bored is hardly going to teach you any kind of moral lesson. How do I know it is wrong? Is it even wrong? Everyone today likes to say about things (erroneously, but never mind that for now) that “It doesn’t hurt anybody, so how can it be wrong?” It would be a lot harder for anyone to explain what was wrong with that if nothing anyone can ever do would hurt anyone.

There are a couple of other points, too. One is that there are some virtues that are brought out in adversity. All of the martyrs, for example, became saints because of the evil acts of others. God can make good come out of anything.

Another is, does God have to intervene and make decisions about the rightness of each action in each instance? If I pull a child off a bike, it will hurt. If I have done it because that bike was about to be hit by a car, should my actions hurt the child or not? Will the child learn as well not to ride his bike out in front of cars if it doesn’t hurt? Does the fact that I intended good and not harm mean that God doesn’t have to intervene in this instance to remove the consequences of my actions? Doubtless God knows the answer, but divine intervention 15 times a day for every human on the planet seems like we’re going back to being puppets.

Another point is that this life is not the real end. Our immortal souls are the the important things. If hardship and adversity and evil are necessary to help the people you have called “the oppressed” become more holy, it is worth it.

But mostly, I would rather not live in a universe where effects do not follow causes. In such a universe there could be no science, because the universe would be being invaded every second by a Power from outside the universe (God), who is constantly causing the laws of physics, chemistry, maybe even biology, to be ignored. We would require God’s knowledge (which cannot be contained in our heads) to understand the whys and wherefores of each tweak of the universe that would be required to prevent effects flowing from causes. Miracles don’t mess with this in the current universe purely because miracles with an externally verifiable effect are rare.

–Jen

 

[fred_conty]

The problem of evil declares that there is a logical contradiction between the creation of the world by a perfectly moral being and the existence of evil in that creation. In order to be perfectly moral, a creator being would have to act to prevent or heal any evil that might occur or threaten to occur if it has the power to do so. Since evil clearly exists in our world, God is either not perfectly moral or lacks sufficient power to prevent evil. In either case, the traditional God of Christian theology does not logically exist.

The common response to this argument is that God cannot act to prevent all evil because it would necessarily conflict with the existence of free will in humanity. If it is impossible to choose evil, then that would make human beings robots rather than moral agents. They could neither be blamed for doing wrong or praised for doing right. Therefore, for the sake of attaining the greater good of the existence of moral agents, God must permit evil.

However, the free will response presumes that free will is most important when it is being used by human beings to do evil. The freedom of the oppressor or whomever must be preserved. But what about the victim? The victim has a will as well. The victim’s will is to be free of the oppressor. Does God not value that will? Christian tradition teaches that God stands on the side of the lowly and the despised. It would therefore be in character for God to stand on the side of the will of the victim, against the will of the oppressor. The “free will” defense to the problem of evil turns this picture on its head. God is made to stand on the side of the oppressor, because that is the de facto outcome of non-intervention. In this scenario, someone’s will is getting infringed upon, and the only question is whether God wants that infringed will to be the oppressor’s or the oppressed.

Depends on the kind of evil. So many are just natural consequences guided by physics.

If the evil comes from humans, than if it isn’t done freely, it is not evil as such, for there is no sin involved. So evil must have free will.

 

[ColdComfort]

If free will and power are not the same, could God remove the power of rapists to rape and still leave their free will intact?

No.

Let’s remove God from the argument for a moment. Someone decides to commit rape. He is hit by a car on the way and can’t carry out his intention. That man should consider himself lucky. If I understand what you are saying someone would decide to commit a rape and then what? God would stop him from doing any act in furtherance of the crime. All he would have is the bare intention and strangely to him he could not do anything to achieve his purpose. His muscles would stop moving I guess. Or an invisible cage would suddenly surround him. Do you understand how foolish this sounds? We’d all be walking around and if we had evil intentions suddenly we’d become immobile. Does this work in cases not including physical assault? A person decides to commit adultery. Same thing? No-one could move. Let’s try it in reverse. God directs your muscles to go to Church and say the rosary. You don’t want to do these things but you find God, or to you some unknown power, has taken over your bodily motions. I’m sorry but is this meant to be serious?

BTW, I am tired of your premise being put in the mouths of Christians. The statement:

" In order to be perfectly moral, a creator being would have to act to prevent or heal any evil that might occur or threaten to occur if it has the power to do so."

has nothing to do with Christianity. If you think otherwise please show us some evidence from Scripture or other Christian source.