Sunday, January 29, 2023

My Freewill Defense

The Free Will Defense is offered by Christian apologists as an answer to any sort of atheist argument such as the problem of pain or the problem of evil. The argument runs something like: God values free will because “he” (“she”?) doesn’t want robots. The problem with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else. This leaves the atheist in a position of arguing any number of pains and evil deeds and then crying that God had to know these things would happen, thus God must be cruel for creating anything at all knowing the total absolute pain (which usually includes hell in most atheist arguments) would result from creation.

The apologists answers usually fail to satisfy the atheist, because in their minds noting can outweigh the actual inflicting of pain. Something atheists evoke omnipotence and play it off against the value of free will, making the assumption that an “all powerful God” could do anything, thus God should be able to cancel any sort of moral debt, make sin beyond our natures, create a pain free universe, and surely if God were all loving, God would have done so.

The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of moral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutely essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God’s omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!

Before moving to the argument I want to make it clear that I deal with two separate issues: the problem of pain (not a moral issue–tornadoes and diseases and the like) becasue it doesn’t involve human choice. Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it involves no choices. Thus I will not deal with that here. I am only concerned in this argument with the the problem of evil that is, the problem of moral choice. The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.

Basic assumptions

There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a “moral universe” and that this value outweighs all others.

The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.

(2) that internal “seeking” leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.

That’s a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn’t care less about.

(3) the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.

The argument would look like this:

(1)God’s purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.

This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn’t just tell everyone that he’s there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:

(5) Life is a “Drama” not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the “big mystery” is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.

In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also explains why God doesn’t often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can’t negate the overall plan of a search.

My own moral decision making paradigm is deontological, because I believe that teleological ethics reduces morality to the decision making of a ledger sheet and forces the individual to do immoral things in the name of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I find most atheists are utilitarians so this will make no sense to them. They can’t help but think of the greatest good/greatest number as the ultaimte adage, and deontology as empty duty with no logic to it. But that is not the case. Deontology is not just rule keeping, it is also duty oriented ethics. The duty that we must internalize is that ultimate duty that love demands of any action. Robots don’t love. One must freely choose to give up self and make a selfless act in order to act from Love. Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.

The choice of free will at the expense of countless lives and untold suffering cannot be an easy thing, but it is essential and can be justified from either deontolgoical or teleological perspective. Although I think the deontologcial makes more sense. From the teleological stand point, free will ultimately leads to the greatest good for the greatest number because in the long run it assumes us that one is willing to die for the other, or sacrifice for the other, or live for the other. That is essential to promoting a good beyond ourselves. The individual sacrifices for the good of the whole, very utilitarian. It is also deontolgocially justifiable since duty would tell us that we must give of ourselves for the good of the other.

Thus anyway you slice it free will outweighs all other concerns because it makes available the values of the good and of love. Free will is the key to ultimately saving the babies, and saving them because we care about them, a triumph of the heart, not just action from wrote. It’s internalization of a value system without which other and greater injustices could be foisted upon an unsuspecting humanity that has not been tought to choose to lay down one’s own life for the other.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joe: The argument runs something like: God values free will because “he” (“she”?) doesn’t want robots. The problem with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else.

Two further issues with the standard free will argument:

1. Natural evil, i.e., flood, drought, hurricane, etc.
2. The free will of the victim; God respects the free will of the rapist to do it, but not the victim to stop it.

Joe: Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God’s omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!

Strange you say God is not allowed to. Who or what is stopping him? Only himself! This must be God's choice.

Joe: Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it involves no choices.

But it does!

God has made a moral choice to allow the tornado or disease to cause so much suffering (or even created them).

This looks like one bit dodge to duck the biggest issue here.

Joe: The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.

If it cannot deal with the Problem of Natural Evil, it is already dead in the water.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: The argument runs something like: God values free will because “he” (“she”?) doesn’t want robots. The problem with this approach is that it often stops short in analysis as to why free will would be a higher value than anything else.


Pix:
Two further issues with the standard free will argument:

1. Natural evil, i.e., flood, drought, hurricane, etc.

Those do not involve free will so they free will defense does not apply


2. The free will of the victim; God respects the free will of the rapist to do it, but not the victim to stop it.

sometimes he intervenes but that's an unreasonable expectation. why? we live in a naturalistic universe.

Joe: Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God’s omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!

Pix: Strange you say God is not allowed to. Who or what is stopping him? Only himself! This must be God's choice.


when we force ourselves to do what's right it's called "integrity," God invented it,

Joe: Pain, inflicted by accident and nature is not a moral issue, because it involves no choices.

But it does!

God has made a moral choice to allow the tornado or disease to cause so much suffering (or even created them).

God is the moral judge he himself is not judged there is no one who could judge him.

This looks like one bit dodge to duck the biggest issue here.

The biggest issue is that you art in rebellion against your maker, you have deceived yourself into thinking you can judge God

Joe: The free will defense cannot apply to makes where the will does not apply.

If it cannot deal with the Problem of Natural Evil, it is already dead in the water.

Pix

we can deal with it but it's a different issue.

wrandum said...

The problem of pain in general is addressed by the Chinese farmer parable. We can't say for sure what is or is not bad or evil in the long run, despite our immediate subjective impressions, since we don't know the total result of any given situation at any particular point in time. This falls under the rubric of skeptical theism.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You mean the parable where everyone wants to be the thing he can't overcome? Maybe but we still have to ask why God allows pain?

Anonymous said...

Joe, the parable is here:
https://bremeracosta.medium.com/parable-of-the-chinese-farmer-f012db83694d

wrandum: The problem of pain in general is addressed by the Chinese farmer parable. We can't say for sure what is or is not bad or evil in the long run, despite our immediate subjective impressions, since we don't know the total result of any given situation at any particular point in time. This falls under the rubric of skeptical theism.

This always feels like a cop out.

How do we resolve X?

God did it - for reasons we can never know. Now shut up and just believe.

Further, I am not expecting Christians to know for sure the solution to the Problem of Evil, but I do expect them to come up with something plausible. If they cannot - after 2000 years of trying - that strongly suggests there is no solution.

That is not like the Chinese farmer; he could see that what happened to him could plausibly be good or bad in the long run.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

when I sad we live in a naturalistic universe I meant one that behaves naturalistically not one whose origin is naturalistic.


Joe: God is the moral judge he himself is not judged there is no one who could judge him.

That is a useful get-out-of-jail-free card for someone who ordered the genocide of the Amalekites. Why did you not just say that on the previous thread.

i don't believe God ordered the geocide of anyone,

The reality, of course, is that anyone can judge God. Christians maintain this idea so they can avoid having to think about the morality of their God.

Anyone can mouth a bunch of crap about God that's not judgement,

Joe: The biggest issue is that you art in rebellion against your maker, you have deceived yourself into thinking you can judge God

If God is perfectly good, why is there an issue with judging him?

There isn't no one can judge him that is what I said. There is a pretend issue because you want to believe you can judge this guy you can't understand,

How can Christians say good is perfectly good if no one is allowed to judge God? Are we to take his word for it? If Satansaid he was perefectly good, should we take him at his word too? How are we to decide who is telling the truth - bearing in mind we are not allowed to judge!


It is idiotic to think you can judge the source of all goodness the creator of all things.

The reality is that I can judge God. we can look at what the Bible says about judge, and we can make our own call on whether that is good or evil. You can choose not - you can choose to turn a blind eye to Biblical atrocities, but that is your choice, not mine.

flapping your gums about things you don't understand is not judging

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

vtw it also says God is not mocked.

Anonymous said...

Joe: when I sad we live in a naturalistic universe I meant one that behaves naturalistically not one whose origin is naturalistic.

Okay. So why then is it unreasonable to expect God to intervene to prevent rape?

Whatever you reason (I cannot imagine what it can possibly be, but I assume you have something), that would be your solution to the Problem of Evil. Go tear up your free will defence.

Joe: i don't believe God ordered the geocide of anyone,

Then the burning of those who reject him in eternal fire or permitting slavery. The simple fact is that once you say we are not allowed to judge God you are letting him get away with any atrocity.

Joe: Anyone can mouth a bunch of crap about God that's not judgement,

Maybe you should state what you mean by judgement here.

To me, judgment in this context is making a moral decision about whether an act is right or wrong.

I think rape is wrong. That is me making a moral judgment.

If hypothetically God ordered a genocide, then I think that was wrong. That is me making a moral judgment.

It is not that difficult to do, as long as you have a decent moral compass.

Are you saying I have no guarantee that I am right? Then sure, i agree. That is how it is. All moral judgments are subjective. A judge sitting in a court of law can get it wrong.

But we can still pass judgment.

Joe: There isn't no one can judge him that is what I said. There is a pretend issue because you want to believe you can judge this guy you can't understand,

So now you defence of the Problem of Evil is that we do not know why God does it. Go tear up your free will defence.

Joe: It is idiotic to think you can judge the source of all goodness the creator of all things.

It is idiotic to assume an entity is perfectly good just because he says he is.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: when I sad we live in a naturalistic universe I meant one that behaves naturalistically not one whose origin is naturalistic.

Okay. So why then is it unreasonable to expect God to intervene to prevent rape?

This calls for a long involved answer so I am putting it off until Monday. I will do the major blog piece on it.

Whatever you reason (I cannot imagine what it can possibly be, but I assume you have something), that would be your solution to the Problem of Evil. Go tear up your free will defence.


Free will defense is the answer. U take it you think that question kills the deal just wait until Monday,

Joe: i don't believe God ordered the geocide of anyone,

Then the burning of those who reject him in eternal fire or permitting slavery. The simple fact is that once you say we are not allowed to judge God you are letting him get away with any atrocity.


If it was merely a matter of God getting away with something you could never stop him since his power is infinite. He would never be beaten, but since God is the basis of the good it's stupid to speak of him "getting away" because he is always right.


Kristen said...

Pix, I agree with you that we have a moral compass and that we can't actually do anything else but use it to decide if an action is good or evil, and that would include perceived actions of God The operative word here, though, is "perceived. " Of course it would be wrong for God to cause needless harm. But it's also wrong for us to judge a perception as if it were a fact. How do we know if an action is needless or not, or whether God caused it or not? Joe is talking about having humility, recognizing that our perceptions are from a finite and limited perspective

Anonymous said...

Kristen

If it is wrong for us to judge a perception as if it were a fact, then how can a court of law operate? Judges and juries make decisions - pass judgment - based on whether they perceive the guy is guilty or not. It would be great to know it as fact, but life is not like that.

Absolutely recognise that our perceptions are from a finite and limited perspective, but that is not an excuse for abandoning morality, for abnegating responsibility.

How do you know God is good, if you fail to use your judgment? Which is worse, judging as we perceive it to be? Or just assuming without any justification at all?

You seem to be saying that we cannot know for sure if the man in the dock is guilty or innocent, therefore we should ignorant all evidence, and assume he is innocent.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

What she said...

Kristen said...

Pix, it really isn't as if this were about some random stranger in the dock, and me as a member of a jury. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but I feel I actually know and have a relationship with the Divine Mystery. This is really more like if I were the child of a trusted parent whom strangers were accusing of wrongdoing. Would I be in the right to ignore all my own history of love and goodness from this parent and just accept the accusations?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If it is wrong for us to judge a perception as if it were a fact, then how can a court of law operate? Judges and juries make decisions - pass judgment - based on whether they perceive the guy is guilty or not. It would be great to know it as fact, but life is not like that.

All of that assumes foundationally that God is real and has clued us in That's why we sware by God to tell the truth,

Absolutely recognize that our perceptions are from a finite and limited perspective, but that is not an excuse for abandoning morality, for abnegating responsibility.

We are not the one's who want to abandon it because God is the fail safe.

How do you know God is good, if you fail to use your judgment? Which is worse, judging as we perceive it to be? Or just assuming without any justification at all?

I have covered that before. You still have to have a principle of arbitration and without God that is relative. Sure you still have to have a judgement call. All the more reason to seek answers in the divine


You seem to be saying that we cannot know for sure if the man in the dock is guilty or innocent, therefore we should ignorant all evidence, and assume he is innocent.

We assume he is innocent until the evidence overturns that assumption

Anonymous said...

Kristen: Pix, it really isn't as if this were about some random stranger in the dock, and me as a member of a jury. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but I feel I actually know and have a relationship with the Divine Mystery. This is really more like if I were the child of a trusted parent whom strangers were accusing of wrongdoing. Would I be in the right to ignore all my own history of love and goodness from this parent and just accept the accusations?

Would that mean yo do not even have the right to judge your parent? How can you know to trust, without first judging?

And to be clear, I am not telling you to blindly accept the accusation, my position is that you have a right - an obligaton even - to judge your parent.

If someone makes an accusation against your parent do you flat out reject on the basis only that he is your father? On blind faith? Or do you actually think for yourself?

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: All of that assumes foundationally that God is real and has clued us in That's why we sware by God to tell the truth,

This is the ultimate issue - is God real, or rather, is Christianity coherent? If Christianity posits a perfectly good God and yet there is no plausible solution to the Problem of Evil, then Christianity is not coherent, and should be rejected.

We are not judging God's morality, we are judging whether what we see in the world is consistent with what Christianity claims.

Joe: We are not the one's who want to abandon it because God is the fail safe.

Not clear what you mean here.

Joe: I have covered that before. You still have to have a principle of arbitration and without God that is relative. Sure you still have to have a judgement call. All the more reason to seek answers in the divine

And how does the divine give you those answers?

The Bible, which tells us slavery is allowed? Anything else, and it seems to me you are doing the same as atheists - just adding God in to make your opinion appear authoritative.

Joe: We assume he is innocent until the evidence overturns that assumption

I would say we assume he does not exist until the evidence overturns that assumption.

Pix

Kristen said...

Pix, you seem to have missed my whole point. You talk as if having a parent was a legal position only. Do you have someone in your life whom you know and trust? Would you take the word of a stranger accusing them of a crime, knowing that the stranger actually didn't know anything more about the situation than you do? And especially if you could easily see how the circumstances were subject to more than one interpretation?

Anonymous said...

Kristen, the discussion was about having the right to judge, which is indeed a legal position, and I took your comment in that context. Sounds like I got that wrong, so I apologise.

So to take the analogy further, you trust you father utterly and completely, but I saw him kill a man. It is upsetting for you if I accuse him of murder, but does that mean I should keep quiet about it, just turn a blind eye to it?

If there was good reason for him to kill the guy, then clearly you should present that - which is really what Joe's post was about. But if I do not know that reason, I would say I am obliged to tell people about the killing. The alternative is to say people should never report crimes because they never have full knowledge of the situation.

Pix

Kristen said...

Analogies of course, can only go so far. If what we're talking about is real, it's a consciousness that is the source of all being, and speaking of it in terms of human culture is certain to fall short of a reality we can barely grasp.

Cuttlebones said...

Joe writes;
(1)God’s purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.


Why does God want a Moral Universe? What is the point of choosing “the Good”?
Is this all just some kind of entrance exam?

You say “love motivates moral behaviour” So is a moral universe the goal and love is just a means of achieving that end?

Joe writes;
Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.


So Love is just a means for God to get us to be moral?

Joe writes;
(2) That internal “seeking” leads to greater internalization of values


What values? What feedback is there to elevate the adoption of a certain value above others?

Joe writes;
Thus we cannot have a loved oriented ethics, or we cannot have love as the background of the moral universe without free will, because love involves the will.


In what way does love involve the will? Can I will myself to love someone?

Ultimately it seems that you are saying the world is as it is, so that God can get what he wants.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Why does God want a Moral Universe? What is the point of choosing “the Good”?
Is this all just some kind of entrance exam?

You say “love motivates moral behaviour” So is a moral universe the goal and love is just a means of achieving that end?

You supplied the answer to your own questions, if love is the motivation of the good then obviously the reason for wanting a moral universe is because its what love demands. God's character is love so he's good therefore he wants a moral universe.

I said: "Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential."

yu say: So Love is just a means for God to get us to be moral?

Upshot essentially means cause in this context. so love cases morality then you reversed the order and assert love is a trick to get us to be moral. But if the basis of the moral is love then love is the real point not just a trick to get us to be moral.

Joe writes;
(2) That internal “seeking” leads to greater internalization of values

you say: What values? What feedback is there to elevate the adoption of a certain value above others?

the values of tge good. just break down what is good you see the values that make for goodness, loyalty, compassion, caring, friendship ect.

In what way does love involve the will? Can I will myself to love someone?

if course we are not robots. will is at the basis of our actions,

Ultimately it seems that you are saying the world is as it is, so that God can get what he wants.


I don't see how you draw that out of it but why not? why should the creator not create for reasons that please him?

Kristen said...

"Ultimately it seems that you are saying the world is as it is, so that God can get what he wants."

Sure. What God wants is a creation filled with other beings whom God can love and who can return love to God and to each other; a creation where these beings grow strong in integrity, purpose and goodness; creatures who can be fellow creators with God. For that purpose God made the world as it is, and whatever suffering occurs can be viewed from the perspective of eternity, as furthering that end. When God gets what God wants, we all get what we want too-- for who wouldn't want full self-actualization as love-filled, morally strong, divine fellow-creators in deep relationship with the Source of our being?

Cuttlebones said...

Blogger Kristen said...
"Ultimately it seems that you are saying the world is as it is, so that God can get what he wants."

Sure. What God wants is a creation filled with other beings whom God can love and who can return love to God and to each other; a creation where these beings grow strong in integrity, purpose and goodness; creatures who can be fellow creators with God. For that purpose God made the world as it is, and whatever suffering occurs can be viewed from the perspective of eternity, as furthering that end. When God gets what God wants, we all get what we want too-- for who wouldn't want full self-actualization as love-filled, morally strong, divine fellow-creators in deep relationship with the Source of our being?

That still doesn't explain why we have suffering. God would be perfectly able to produce "creation filled with other beings whom God can love and who can return love to God and to each other ..." what does the suffering achieve? Any earthly suffering "viewed from the perspective of eternity" is akin to tearing off a bandaid? A little pain soon forgotten?

Kristen said...

Spiritual strength, depth, and purpose. Ability to create in great beauty and power. I remember when I was in college, the creative writing professor told me I had good technical skills but my writing was shallow. "You need experience," he said. "Frankly, you need some suffering in your life. " God can create powerful fellow creators, or God can create hothouse flowers.

Cuttlebones said...

What exactly is Spiritual strength, depth, and purpose and why is it important?
We value the beauty that comes from suffering because we are all suffering and to see something good come out of that is uplifting. Not everyone can make something beautiful from their suffering. Most just suffer.
While we can find some good that arises in spite of suffering it's not a good reason for inflicting it.
Would you rather be an interesting writer and live in misery or have a nice life?

Kristen said...

God doesn't inflict suffering, but God did create a physical world where things can happen to our physical bodies. It would be interesting to learn if it is actually possible to have a physical universe where there is no possibility of suffering. I think it likely that if there is to be a physical universe with physical beings in it, then suffering might be an inevitable part of that. I believe that God created the physical universe, and that it is good-- but "most just suffer," you say, and that is true when looked at only in terms of our physical life spans. If those life spans were all we had, then for some of us, existence might not be worth the pain. But if we really do go on into eternity, then suffering when looked at in the light of eternity, does allow for moral and spiritual growth that we will enjoy forever, and that might otherwise not happen.

Cuttlebones said...

if we really do go on into eternity.
I know you believe we do, but the thing is, we don't know if that is a reality. So all we have to measure our suffering against is this physical life span.
Balanced against the "light of eternity" you can justify any amount of suffering. In the here and now, with no perceivable benefit, not so much.
You say it "does allow for moral and spiritual growth that we will enjoy forever". What about those who don't suffer? Is God short-changing them?

Kristen said...

Cuttlebones, you said, "if we really do go on into eternity.
I know you believe we do, but the thing is, we don't know if that is a reality."

Well, sure. I also believe in God, which humanity doesn't know for certain is a reality. The thing is, if there is a God, there is (to my mind) almost certainly also eternal life-- because, as you say, the existence of human suffering, given the existence of a loving God, doesn't make sense without eternal life. To my mind, the two have to go together, as they certainly do in my own faith tradition.

You also asked "What about those who don't suffer?" I have to assume you mean those who die in infancy or childhood, because to be human includes suffering, and no one can escape it for very long. As for those who die very young, who knows? It's possible they get a chance to come back, to have more than one life. I know that's not part of the Christian tradition, but there really isn't anything against it. Or, possibly, their path in eternity is just different. This is a mystery, and I embrace the mysteries of faith.