|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Free Will Theodicy
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The free will defence is perhaps the most cogent Christian justification for the existence of both moral and natural evil in the universe, and has been strongly argued in recent decades by proponents such as Alvin Plantinga.
I personally have problems with it, but I would be interested to hear from more theologically and philosophically sophisticated Shipmates their assessments of its validity.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Hmmm - your last bit rules me out.
As a layman, I'd observe that I have choice - so to choose an example from this morning, I can lose it with my kids, or do something better / more creative / with more positive outcomes.
For this to be a 'choice' with meaning (as opposed to a selection between two things which are the same - green or blue paint on the front door?) then 'better' and 'worse' need to exist.
Without wanting to derail your thread entirely on post no.2, the existence of 'better' (in the sense I understand it) has the attributes of 'God'; a quick summary being that all arguments about it collapse to 'it just is' (or, for the more sociopathically-inclined, 'is not'.)
Therefore for me, if free will exists, God does. If God does not exist, neither (for me) does meaningful choice, which implies that free will goes about as limp as aesthetic preference.
Well, as I said I know nothing about this.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
This seems illogical to me. The existence or not of god cannot be predicated on the ability of our species to perform acts that we may view as 'good'. People can do 'good' things independently of whether or not gods exist (and indeed that's the whole point of free will, isn't it?).
IOW, free will does not imply the existence of gods. Rather the contrary if anything, I should think.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I didn't think that the free will defence is an argument for God, but rather it saves the idea of an omnipotent God. Such a being could presumably correct all evil, but some evil must be allowed, so that freedom can exist for individuals. Or, we must be allowed to choose evil, otherwise we are robots.
I don't see how it works with natural evil, since if you argue that nature is permitted to mutate as and when, then God might as well not exist? I mean, there is no difference between a God extant, and a God absent.
Of course, you can posit a God who intervenes sometimes, but that seems arbitrary.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
OK, a couple of clarifications.
First, the issue is not whether free will proves, disproves, or is compatible with, the EXISTENCE of God, but whether free will demonstrates the compatibility of the existence of evil with belief in the existence of a GOOD God.
Secondly, I was not implying that I am theologically or philosophically sophisticated, or that only theologically and philosophically Shipmates are entitled to comment on the issue.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Thank you for the clarification KC, and permission to post.
For me, free will to do evil must be allowed so that we may actively choose good, ie God. Therefore God is not responsible for the evil in the world, we are, and we are each fully accountable for our words and actions, hence sin is identified.
Natural evil is either a corruption of what is good, or healthy for the environment while harming its flora and fauna temporarily.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The existence or not of god cannot be predicated on the ability of our species to perform acts that we may view as 'good'. People can do 'good' things independently of whether or not gods exist...
What are your criteria for determining whether something is 'good' or not?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I doubt my personal criteria are of much interest here, but perhaps you're getting at the question of the origin of morality?
A. Natural sources.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Does God have free will?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, you can posit a God who intervenes sometimes, but that seems arbitrary.
Perhaps. But "arbitrary" is no logical objection to a position--more an aesthetic one. And "intervenes sometimes" is actually the real--and only--observed category for the choicemakers we do know exist, namely people. So I wouldn't rule it out as a correct description of God.
To Yorick: There is a difference between gods and God. Gods plural are under external limitations--first and most obvious, the existence and actions of one another. God singular in the usual conception of omni-etc. is limited only by his own nature, that is, his own desires, character, will, and so forth.
I don't think you can safely argue from gods to God.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just a general observation--
The traditional Judeo-Christian worldview posits more than one species with the power of free will. Besides God himself and humanity, there are those beings we refer to as angels or devils--and we know very little about them, even how many kinds or species there are. But we do know that they have free will, and therefore muddy the whole question of who exactly is responsible for the various evils in which we find ourselves living.
Heck, the J/C worldview also allows for the possible existence of endless numbers of so-called aliens we simply don't know yet. Which muddies things even further.
It's not going to be an easy problem to discuss, let alone solve.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, you can posit a God who intervenes sometimes, but that seems arbitrary.
Perhaps. But "arbitrary" is no logical objection to a position--more an aesthetic one. And "intervenes sometimes" is actually the real--and only--observed category for the choicemakers we do know exist, namely people. So I wouldn't rule it out as a correct description of God.
It's a logical objection in the context of theodicy-- the seeming arbitrariness of God's decision to intervene sometimes but not always to prevent human suffering is the central, core issue of theodicy.
The question of theodicy is probably the oldest, thorniest theological question humans wrestle with, and arguably a leading reason why people ultimately reject all faith. Because it is such an ancient vexing question the temptation is to walk away from the debate and chalk it up to "mystery" (as Augustine essentially does). But the problem with that, imho, is it distances us from God. It suggests that when God is most desperately needed, he ducks behind a veil of secrecy and hidden motives. If we can't ask "where are you?!?" when our lives are falling apart all around us, then how can we in any meaningful way speak of a God of love.
I favor Open Theism-- a radical version of free will theodicy-- as the best, most systematic explanation to the problem of theodicy. It's not flawless, but I think it gets us closer than any other system/explanation that's been floated.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, it is an unsolvable conundrum in the context of traditional Christian belief.
God cannot be Omniscient, Good and disallow free will. Because this means s/he directly causes horrible things.
God cannot be Omniscient, Good and allow free will. Because s/he knows we will do horrible things.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Thank you for the clarification KC, and permission to post.
Heh.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I didn't think that the free will defence is an argument for God, but rather it saves the idea of an omnipotent God. Such a being could presumably correct all evil, but some evil must be allowed, so that freedom can exist for individuals. Or, we must be allowed to choose evil, otherwise we are robots.
I don't see how it works with natural evil, since if you argue that nature is permitted to mutate as and when, then God might as well not exist? I mean, there is no difference between a God extant, and a God absent.
Maybe there could be no universe without God causing it to begin? But, after that, maybe s/he gave the whole caboodle free will to evolve and mutate as it has?
Maybe God, who started it all, did so in love and weeps over those things which do not reflect love.
Or maybe not, maybe all is without cause or purpose. If that's so we will simply have to muddle along and bring our own version of 'good' and 'love' to be, if we can.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QUOTE]
To Yorick: There is a difference between gods and God. Gods plural are under external limitations--first and most obvious, the existence and actions of one another. God singular in the usual conception of omni-etc. is limited only by his own nature, that is, his own desires, character, will, and so forth.
I don't think you can safely argue from gods to God.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. By 'gods' I'm talking of any entities believed to be omnipotent. I don't discriminate here against Allahs or Yahwehs or sun gods or holy ghosts, so I didn't use a proper noun, but I'm happy to use one if you'd prefer me to and please don't get offended if I refer to Gods.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
I doubt my personal criteria are of much interest here, but perhaps you're getting at the question of the origin of morality?
A. Natural sources.
I believe that 'natural sources' are ultimately nebulous, and self-creating in the same ways that Christians think about 'God'. That is, arguments from societal necessity / meme-stuff about groups which survive certainly exist, but throw up counter-examples which result in folks going 'yeah i know, but that <just isn't> good' - or whatever.
I'm glad about that, since 'scientific' attempts to determine societal norms of morality have created monsters.
I'd note that my argument doesn't say much for Christianity, necessarily, though that's my religion. But I do hold that your belief in 'good' is no more sophisticated than anyone's belief in 'God'. That's a f*cker if you want to claim atheism whilst having the individual free will to discern and pursue the 'good'.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I haven't the faintest idea what free will is. Does God have it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Freewill is the only thing that saves the universe from being scripted completely. Like a movie where no ad lib is allowed. It also means anything can be.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I'd note that my argument doesn't say much for Christianity, necessarily, though that's my religion. But I do hold that your belief in 'good' is no more sophisticated than anyone's belief in 'God'. That's a f*cker if you want to claim atheism whilst having the individual free will to discern and pursue the 'good'.
I other words, you are saying good must be an externally applied force.
An atheist might say that it is demonstrable that good exists.* The mechanism by which it exists is secondary to the fact that it does.
God does not demonstrably exist. Note that I am not denigrating the belief in deities, just the proof thereof.
*There is the argument that good is ultimately selfish, so it is not a perfect argument.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Or you could say that the concept of good exists, and leave it at that. Is there any point in asserting that 'good' exists sui generis, except of course, in the middle of theistic arguments.
In fact, does free will demonstrably exist? I mean, of course, we all feel that we make choices - is that a good enough demonstration?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
An atheist might say that it is demonstrable that good exists.* The mechanism by which it exists is secondary to the fact that it does.
I'd agree completely with those statements. The argument that I don't think there _is_ a mechanism is central to what I'm trying to say - one can't come up with one which works reliably without falling back in some instances to a 'good' which **just is**.
Things which **just are** belong in the category of the G(g)od(s). Which is to say - my belief in G(g)ods(s) is not OK because it is transcendent, not amenable to deconstruction, but someone else's belief in a 'good' which is equally un-caused...is OK? Why's that?
(And this is relevant to the OP, because we are talking about theodicy, and a 'free' choice between 'good' and 'bad' which means something).
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I'm not sure if this is theology or not, and still less if I'm any good at it, but these are my observations to date.
God exists, and is still creating the world. We have a choice as to whether or not we co-operate.
Free will, however, is largely an illusion of the march towards capitalism. It was needed to support constructs such as the market.
My conviction, for what it's worth, is that free will is a construct of the ego/false self, made to support its sense of its own importance. Once we truly understand and accept the continuing, creative presence of God in our hearts and lives, this is the illusion which is given up.
I'm nowhere near there yet, but that I believe to be what is going on. I'm not sure what that does to morality, but then I have long believed that Christianity is entirely ethical, and utterly without morals. By that I mean that it is worked out exclusively within the context of relationships and has no meaningful space for abstract moral constructs. It is entirely an invitation to divine intimacy, with God and each other. Intimacy in which we discover ourselves in God and vice versa. Where is the space for free will in that?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Freewill is the only thing that saves the universe from being scripted completely. Like a movie where no ad lib is allowed. It also means anything can be.
Nope, that's physics. What's free will?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Freewill is the only thing that saves the universe from being scripted completely. Like a movie where no ad lib is allowed. It also means anything can be.
Nope, that's physics. What's free will?
It's the truth that by our own will we may determine to carry out God's will, ie to do good and avoid doing evil, and act accordingly.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My conviction, for what it's worth, is that free will is a construct of the ego/false self, made to support its sense of its own importance. Once we truly understand and accept the continuing, creative presence of God in our hearts and lives, this is the illusion which is given up.
I don't disagree with this way of seeing it.
Comparing this to the invention of flying machines, the first is like the freedom that we all have of accepting or not accepting the laws of physics. The second is like accepting and understanding how to make use of these laws to actually fly.
The first seems like free will, but actually accomplishes nothing. It is the foolish construct of the ego.
Only the second is actual freedom, because it is the freedom to actually do what we wish.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Freewill is the only thing that saves the universe from being scripted completely. Like a movie where no ad lib is allowed. It also means anything can be.
Nope, that's physics. What's free will?
It's the truth that by our own will we may determine to carry out God's will, ie to do good and avoid doing evil, and act accordingly.
That seems very human, very un-Godly, a-Godly, very elephantine, canine, lupine, feline, dolphin, gorilla, cephalopod and even, unbelievably, arboreal too. It's a function of social psychological complexity, of complex sensitivity, 'irritability', one of the properties of life. I wouldn't call it free will as I don't see how those words apply, how they explain anything.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
My conviction, for what it's worth, is that free will is a construct of the ego/false self, made to support its sense of its own importance. Once we truly understand and accept the continuing, creative presence of God in our hearts and lives, this is the illusion which is given up.
I don't disagree with this way of seeing it.
Comparing this to the invention of flying machines, the first is like the freedom that we all have of accepting or not accepting the laws of physics. The second is like accepting and understanding how to make use of these laws to actually fly.
The first seems like free will, but actually accomplishes nothing. It is the foolish construct of the ego.
Only the second is actual freedom, because it is the freedom to actually do what we wish.
So being able to do what we wish is not free will?
We are only truly free when we realise that we are not?
right.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So being able to do what we wish is not free will?
We are only truly free when we realise that we are not?
right.
That's it.
In a physical sense we are only truly free when we recognize the forces at work in the physical world and learn to work in accordance with their laws.
Same applies to spiritual realities.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So being able to do what we wish is not free will?
We are only truly free when we realise that we are not?
right.
That's it.
In a physical sense we are only truly free when we recognize the forces at work in the physical world and learn to work in accordance with their laws.
That does not preclude free will. Because we do not have every choice, does not mean we have no choice.
quote:
Same applies to spiritual realities.
I'm not sure realities is the proper word. Regardless, choice means free will here as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, it is an unsolvable conundrum in the context of traditional Christian belief.
God cannot be Omniscient, Good and disallow free will. Because this means s/he directly causes horrible things.
God cannot be Omniscient, Good and allow free will. Because s/he knows we will do horrible things.
The classic statement of the conumdrum goes back to Epicurus, who said that God is supposed to be, by definition, omnipotent and good, but since evil exists, He either won't prevent it, and is therefore not good, or can't prevent it, and is therefore not omnipotent.
Figures such as Plantinga, if I understand them correctly, try to cut through this Gordian Knot by claiming that to give a creature free will is an ultimate good, but that the possibility of evil is inseparable from this freedom's being granted.
I think they would claim that if God did not grant us free will He would not be good, and that to require Him to give us both free will and freedom from the effects of evil would be as meaningless as to require Him to demonstrate His omnipotence by creating a square circle.
(I have given God a masculine pronoun simply for the sake of convenience, not to make any gender point).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The problems with the free will defence which I outlined in my last post (assuming I have understood and explained it accurately) are, ITSM, as follows.
First, it accounts for moral evil better than it accounts for natural evil.
Phenomena such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, mudslides/landslips, typhoons, forest fires caused by lightning strikes, crop diseases, plus all those horrible diseases (malaria, cholera, ebola, AIDS, syphilis, rabies - you name it)) are not a direct result of human misuse of free will, and must therefore be a result of direct divine fiat.
Any attempt to shift the blame to Satan comes up against the heresy of dualism eg Manichaeism.
Secondly, it does not explain the suffering of animals.
Thirdly, if (as traditional orthodoxy seems to suggest) most of humanity are going to end up in hell for eternity, how can this in any meaningful way be seen as a lesser evil than denying creatures free will?
Fourthly, if free will is such an imperative good, will it continue as part of the saved's experience in heaven, in which case is there the possibility of a further Fall (or a series of further Falls, such as Origen conjectured)?
Fifthly, historic, credal Christianity is theistic rather than deistic (ie God can and does continue to intervene and act in history, rather than setting our world going and then leaving it alone), which means He can and does from time to time overrule human free will, which leaves us with the problem alluded to upthread, of His seemingly arbitrary interventions to prevent some evil and not others.
Finally, the free will defence might seem to carry some validity in a tutorial room, but it is too academic and theoretical to provide any satisfaction in the face of horrors such as an appalling disease, or accident, or even deliberate torture, suffered by a child, which God watches but declines to prevent (yes, I have recently re-read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Surely the greatest problem with free will theodicy, i.e. a process of growing closer to God by the exercise of individual free will, is that it requires the individual to be an expert on the will of God, and/or gives the individual the authority to make declarations on that subject, if only implicit ones through actions. Are we talking exclusively about individual free will, exercised in individual situations, or does the idea also encompass processes of collective discernment? Without the latter, it seems to me to be a massive outbreak of almighty arrogance.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Without wishing to be derisory or anything, from an atheistic point of view I must say how much simpler the question becomes when one doesn't have to find some way of making such an intransigently round circle into a square. It's so simple and obvious and gut-instinctively true that the answer to the problem of evil is that there is no god, and that the universe is neither cruel nor kind- it is indifferent. From that perspective it all makes perfect sense. In a strange (and perhaps unexpected) way, it is profoundly reassuring to realise this.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Without wishing to be derisory or anything, from an atheistic point of view I must say how much simpler the question becomes when one doesn't have to find some way of making such an intransigently round circle into a square. It's so simple and obvious and gut-instinctively true that the answer to the problem of evil is that there is no god, and that the universe is neither cruel nor kind- it is indifferent. From that perspective it all makes perfect sense. In a strange (and perhaps unexpected) way, it is profoundly reassuring to realise this.
In the book I referred to above, Dostoevsky famously wrote, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted" (the quote as such does not appear, but it is a reasonable summation of various statements in the story).
Jacques Lacan's inversion of it ("If God does not exist, then everything is prohibited") might equally be true, but what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
At the end of the day, yes. But believers have an extra layer of incoherent complexity. Even mine, ruthlessly pared of claims, still goes incoherent as the Jesus story clashes with reality beyond its minimal claim.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
KC, I've started another thread on the complexity/simplicity thing so as to avoid derailing this one with the tangent.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think that atheism is mysterious if it involves a definite claim that there is no God. However, if it involves a lack of belief in God, then it seems no more mysterious than not collecting stamps.
On free will: I just remembered the old question, what is free will free of? That is, it's presumably reckoned to be independent of external influences, prior causes, brain events, and so on, but how would one know that? I don't think that one's own introspection is particularly reliable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's all in the same ballpark. Theism, like free will, doesn't stand up to a shave.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the questions raised by some Buddhists is: what is it that is free? However, one is advised not to go there, as it leads to madness, long days in darkened rooms, and the increased consumption of alcohol and sex. Yummy!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
It's so simple and obvious and gut-instinctively true that the answer to the problem of evil is that there is no god, and that the universe is neither cruel nor kind- it is indifferent.
Well, that's intellectually consistent - but amounts to saying 'the problem of evil is solved by there being no evil'.
I know, KC already made that point - I see your 'Brothers Karamazov' (actually I only half-see it - to my shame I conked out half way through. I must try again) and raise you a 'Crime and Punishment' (I found this one easier!) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
OK, a couple of clarifications.
First, the issue is not whether free will proves, disproves, or is compatible with, the EXISTENCE of God, but whether free will demonstrates the compatibility of the existence of evil with belief in the existence of a GOOD God.
Depends on the emotional, spiritual and psychological makeup of the person and their experience of suffering.
It's not an intellectual question but an emotive one.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, it accounts for moral evil better than it accounts for natural evil.
Phenomena such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, mudslides/landslips, typhoons, forest fires caused by lightning strikes, crop diseases, plus all those horrible diseases (malaria, cholera, ebola, AIDS, syphilis, rabies - you name it)) are not a direct result of human misuse of free will, and must therefore be a result of direct divine fiat.
Any attempt to shift the blame to Satan comes up against the heresy of dualism eg Manichaeism.
Secondly, it does not explain the suffering of animals.
No. Paul says nature broke with us at the Fall: same as we did. Animals would be included I suppose (as part of creation).
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Thirdly, if (as traditional orthodoxy seems to suggest) most of humanity are going to end up in hell for eternity, how can this in any meaningful way be seen as a lesser evil than denying creatures free will?
I don't recall any orthodox theology or biblical theology that says most of humanity are going to end up in hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Fourthly, if free will is such an imperative good, will it continue as part of the saved's experience in heaven, in which case is there the possibility of a further Fall (or a series of further Falls, such as Origen conjectured)?
I've wondered this myself. In the new heaven and the new earth, will we still have free will?
I've come to the conclusion the answer lies somewhere along the line of Jesus' answer to who's wife will she be in the resurrection?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Fifthly, historic, credal Christianity is theistic rather than deistic (ie God can and does continue to intervene and act in history, rather than setting our world going and then leaving it alone), which means He can and does from time to time overrule human free will, which leaves us with the problem alluded to upthread, of His seemingly arbitrary interventions to prevent some evil and not others.
I think Christianity is more complex than those two possibilities. God doesn't only intervene sometimes and not others to our consternation. Recall it is in God that we live and move and have our being. Our very existence in entirely dependent on God at any moment in time.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Finally, the free will defence might seem to carry some validity in a tutorial room, but it is too academic and theoretical to provide any satisfaction in the face of horrors such as an appalling disease, or accident, or even deliberate torture, suffered by a child, which God watches but declines to prevent (yes, I have recently re-read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov).
Absolutely. Which is why you never bring such an idea up in a pastoral situation. It may be an idea that can come and be reflected on later - much later.
Anti-theodicy is much more pastorally satisfying. Can be intellectually too.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
There is no free will, because there is no true self, no authentic life outside of God. God's will is entirely self-consistent, so we are drawn by the life of God within us into that life, and out of the comforting illusion of separation.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is no free will, because there is no true self, no authentic life outside of God. God's will is entirely self-consistent, so we are drawn by the life of God within us into that life, and out of the comforting illusion of separation.
Very good. I'm not a Christian but this post rings true to me, and will ring so in various Eastern religions, such as advaita. The idea of free will seems to depend on the notion of the separate self, which presumably becomes an agent, which is 'free'. Free of what?
On the other hand, the life of the ego, and hence free will, does exist as a real illusion. I like it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't recall any orthodox theology or biblical theology that says most of humanity are going to end up in hell.
"Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:22-4 are not necessarily proof texts, but are certainly suggestive.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There is no free will, because there is no true self, no authentic life outside of God. God's will is entirely self-consistent, so we are drawn by the life of God within us into that life, and out of the comforting illusion of separation.
Nicely put.
The illusion isn't so much that we are free but that we are autonomous. It seems to us that we are independent and autonomous, and so we are free. As far as our perceptions are concerned the power of thought and motion that we experience originates in ourselves.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Doctor Johnson famously said, "Sir, We know our will is free, and there's an end on it".
There might be room for critiquing the concept of, and the terminology surrounding, free will, but presumably we can agree that at the very least human beings possess some degree of moral agency - otherwise, it would be meaningless to commend or condemn any human action.
[ 14. August 2016, 21:58: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Yes.
Which is why predestination is so bizarre. It's an anti free will argument. But it's certainly present in some of Paul's work. But not so much in the gospels. I mean, why bother with all the exhortations to turn and repent?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't recall any orthodox theology or biblical theology that says most of humanity are going to end up in hell.
"Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:22-4 are not necessarily proof texts, but are certainly suggestive.
Warnings to faithfulness.
Contraindicated perhaps by 1 Timothy 2:
quote:
This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For
there is one God;
there is also one mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
who gave himself a ransom for all
and the rich not being able to be saved but that nothing is impossible for God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Matthew 7:13-14 is NOTHING to do with being saved in the narrowest, most uncharitable, unmerciful, un-transcendent, trajectory-less sense.
Neither is Luke 13:22-35 for that matter, expanding on the above and scary and threatening with Judgement.
This has NOTHING to do with eternity, with transcendence, with reality. Make up a better story, for Heaven's sake!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Fourthly, if free will is such an imperative good, will it continue as part of the saved's experience in heaven, in which case is there the possibility of a further Fall (or a series of further Falls, such as Origen conjectured)?
That's the key point for me. Assuming freedom to be a good (as we must to propose the free will defence at all) then we have it in Heaven, and if our tenure in Heaven is eternal, that implies that freedom can and will exist without evil. So to say that evil must exist for there to be meaningful freedom is wrong.
I do think the free will defence helps to the extent that it shows what sort of good things (right choices when there is something of real significance at stake) God might be aiming for by permitting evil, but I don't think it proves that we could not have had those good things any other way. It provides just enough of a cogent explanation that there's a good reason why things aren't as we or God would want them to be, that there's a justification for God not calling time on the universe right now, that we can continue to trust in him, but as a full account of why things "have to be" this way it fails, IMHO.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
