I am going to present my basic theodicy idea here, Wednesday deal with assumption that God is good and cannot be evil. The necessity of free will is expressed in this segment,
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.
Objection:
One might object that this couldn't outweigh babies dying or the horrors of war or the all the countless injustices and outrages that must be allowed and that permeate human history. It may seem at first glance that free will is petty compared to human suffering. But I am advocating free will for the sake any sort of pleasure or imagined moral victory that accrues from having free will, it's a totally pragmatic issue; that internalizing the value of the good requires that one choose to do so, and free will is essential if choice is required. Thus it is not a capricious or selfish defense of free will, not a matter of choosing our advantage or our pleasure over that of dying babies, but of choosing the key to saving the babies in the long run,and to understanding why we want to save them, and to care about saving them, and to actually choosing their saving over our own good.
In deciding what values outweigh other values we have to be clear about our decision making paradigm. From a utilitarian standpoint the determinate of lexically ordered values would be utility, what is the greatest good for the greatest number? This would be determined by means of outcome, what is the final tally sheet in terms of pleasure over pain to the greatest aggregate? But why that be the value system we decide by? It's just one value system and much has been written about the bankruptcy of consequentialist ethics. If one uses a deontological standard it might be a different thing to consider the lexically ordered values. Free will predominates because it allows internalization of the good. The good is the key to any moral value system. This could be justified on both deontolgoical and teleological premises.
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.
Objection 2: questions
(from "UCOA" On CARM boards (atheism)
Quote:
In addition, there is no explanation of why god randomly decided to make a "moral universe".
Why do you describe the decision as random? Of course all of this is second guessing God, so the real answer is "I don't know, duh" But far be it form me to give-up without an opinion. My opinion as to why God would create moral universe:
to understand this you must understand my view of God, and that will take some doing. I'll try to just put it in a nut shell. In my view love is the background of the moral universe. The essence of "the good" or of what is moral is that which conforms to "lug." But love in the apogee sense, the will to the good of the other. I do not believe that that this is just derived arbitrarily, but is the outpouring of the wellspring of God's character. God is love, thus love is the background of the moral universe because God is the background of the moral universe.
Now I also describe God as "being itself." Meaning God is the foundation of all that is. I see a connection between love and being. Both are positive and giving and turning on in the face of nothingness, which is negativity. To say that another way, if we think of nothingness as a big drain pipe, it is threatening to **** all that exits into it. Being is the power to resist nothingness, being the stopper in the great cosmic drain pipe of non existence.
The act of bestowing being upon the beings is the nature of God because God is being. Those the two things God does because that's what he is, he "BES" (um, exists) and he gives out being bestowing it upon other beings. This is connected to love which also gives out and bestows. So being and love are connected, thus the moral universe is an outgrowth of the nature of God as giving and bestowing and being and loving.
Quote:
Thus the question isn't really answered. Why does god allow/create evil? To create a "moral universe". Why? The only answer that is given is, because he wants to. Putting it together, Why does god allow/create evil? Because he wants to?
In a nut shell, God allows evil as an inherent risk in allowing moral agency. (the reason for which is given above).
There is a big difference in doing something and allowing it to be done. God does not create evil, he allows the risk of evil to be run by the beings, because that risk is required to have free moral agency. The answer is not "because he wants to" the answer is because he wants free moral agency so that free moral agents will internatize the values of love. To have free moral agency he must allow them to:
(1)run the risk of evil choices
(2) live in a real world where hurt is part of the dice throw.
objection 3:
Originally Posted by Darth Pringle
Yes it obviously is. This is anther one of my "caaaAAAAAAaaasy" Idea tha NOOOOOOO body would eVVER consider!'
(1) If God is real, then God created the world (why he's called "God")
(2) If God is real and created the world we can assume that God is good an axiom of belief and as an empirical conclusion drawn postorori from the sense of the numinous.
(3) If God created the universe we assume he's smart.
(3) if God created the world (and he's smart) and if God is good, then he must have created the world with a calculation of good vs. evil in mind.
(4) Given what's been said above if we assume God is real we just assume he knows best based upon the calculation and had tabulated the results and found that creation is worth it.
see my answers to atheist attacks on this idea in my essay: "Twelve Angry Stereotypes"
15 comments:
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/03/evolutionary-development-of-god-concept.html
On the debate over JP's Banana postPaplimnton linked to a Wiki article (an article flagged as needing work be that as it may) saying:
Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity.[1][2] There is inconclusive evidence that Homo neanderthalensis may have buried their dead which is evidence of the use of ritual. The use of burial rituals is thought to be evidence of religious activity, and there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.
That is supposed to prove that religion is made up entirely by humans with no
God involved. I suggest that evolutionary nature of religion in and of itself is not enough to rule out God,After all of God users evolution in creation then we should expect God to allow evolutionary nature of religion to shape human development. Here is my article (part 1) showing how the evolutionary nature of religious development is not contrary to God.
"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.""
Why would we not want to follow them?
Suppose that, as a parent, I deliberately forego opportunities to teach my children right and wrong on the grounds that if I am too clear, their obedience would not be from the heart. Instead, I leave cryptic post-it notes around the house that they may or may not discover and read. Would this be perfect parenting?
Hey Eric, thanks or dropping by
"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.""
Why would we not want to follow them?
I am assuming the Christian take on human nature. But I think My observations of life back that up. Probably most people would like them for the most part but there would come a time were they would run up against something they did not like.
Suppose that, as a parent, I deliberately forego opportunities to teach my children right and wrong on the grounds that if I am too clear, their obedience would not be from the heart. Instead, I leave cryptic post-it notes around the house that they may or may not discover and read. Would this be perfect parenting?
That is not analogous. If you left a recording of you making a speech called "My ideas of right and wrong" they might spend the rest of their lives debating is it really Dad? Well it;s all there for them. They just have to believe. God even entered history as a man.All you have to do is look for the evidence.
It seems to me that Erik is referring to moral instruction while you are talking more about internalizing and freely loving and choosing the good.
I would be hesitant to lump all of the good under "love." That seems too reductive. Also it seems like you're trying to have it both ways: You're saying that the evidence is clear in the case of the incarnation, but you're also saying that God wants ambiguity in order for there to be a drama.
I agree that the basic reason for creation is a moral universe, but I personally prefer Polkinghorne's theodicy of free will requiring free process, because i think it accounts for natural evil and moral evil together in one simple theory and recognizes freedom as an intrinsic, not just an instrumental, good.
All of this hinges on there being real free will, of course. I thought you were a compatibilist, not a libertarian?
Here are my notes on the problem of evil:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-book-of-job-and-problem-of-evil.html
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/02/christian-interaction-with-problem-of.html
It seems to me that Erik is referring to moral instruction while you are talking more about internalizing and freely loving and choosing the good.
Yes but the interlining is my answer to the problem, so we are not talking at cross purposes.
I would be hesitant to lump all of the good under "love." That seems too reductive. Also it seems like you're trying to have it both ways: You're saying that the evidence is clear in the case of the incarnation, but you're also saying that God wants ambiguity in order for there to be a drama.
Why is it not reductive to lump all good under "the good?" Osmt that what good is? The thing we term love is really an active attitude of good applied to relationships. Good and love have a synonomy about them.
I agree that the basic reason for creation is a moral universe, but I personally prefer Polkinghorne's theodicy of free will requiring free process, because i think it accounts for natural evil and moral evil together in one simple theory and recognizes freedom as an intrinsic, not just an instrumental, good.
my view does the same. It accounts for both moral and natural evil.The point is the search so Nature must be allowed to provide what it will Other wise God would have to tip his hand every time.
All of this hinges on there being real free will, of course. I thought you were a compatibilist, not a libertarian?
My view allows for aspects of determinism but I do feel free will must be central.
As I have said before, Joe, I find your view to be the best explanation that I've read. This just makes the most sense to me!
I would move forward from this and say that the purpose of a moral universe, where free beings freely choose the good, is so that the free beings will grow morally and spiritually to come closer and closer into fellowship with the Creator. I see love as, yes, an active attitude of applying the good, but also as the spiritual force that holds the creation together, as the ultimate creative expression of the divine nature. We must face hardship so that we have opportunities to choose love over fear. Fear is a natural state of the physical creature, and it's the deep motivation behind the unloving things we do. God doesn't want minions or slaves; God doesn't want souls that stay forever childish and immature; God wants beings that will grow into little "godlets" that can relate to God fully. This ultimate love, this friendship, this ultimate good, is worth the hardships that must come in order for it to develop.
Why is it not reductive to lump all good under "the good?" Osmt that what good is? The thing we term love is really an active attitude of good applied to relationships. Good and love have a synonomy about them.
Love is generally considered to be a good thing; not vice versa. The good is a broader category than love. It is a good thing to hate evil and injustice. In some cases stoicism is a good thing. Your definition of love, "willing the 'good' of the other", depends on a prior understanding of the good. The good is already implicit in your definition of love.
My view allows for aspects of determinism but I do feel free will must be central.
It depends on how you define freedom. Your theodicy seems to assume a metaphysical kind of free will, but I thought you subscribed to circumstantial free will, not metaphysical (libertarian) free will.
As I have said before, Joe, I find your view to be the best explanation that I've read. This just makes the most sense to me!
Thank you Kristen I really appreciate that,
I would move forward from this and say that the purpose of a moral universe, where free beings freely choose the good, is so that the free beings will grow morally and spiritually to come closer and closer into fellowship with the Creator.
good point
I see love as, yes, an active attitude of applying the good, but also as the spiritual force that holds the creation together, as the ultimate creative expression of the divine nature. We must face hardship so that we have opportunities to choose love over fear. Fear is a natural state of the physical creature, and it's the deep motivation behind the unloving things we do. God doesn't want minions or slaves; God doesn't want souls that stay forever childish and immature; God wants beings that will grow into little "godlets" that can relate to God fully. This ultimate love, this friendship, this ultimate good, is worth the hardships that must come in order for it to develop.
Both our views make choice a very important act. Part of the process. That necessitates free will. Thanks for taking time to participate,
7th Stooge said...
Why is it not reductive to lump all good under "the good?" Osmt that what good is? The thing we term love is really an active attitude of good applied to relationships. Good and love have a synonomy about them.
7: Love is generally considered to be a good thing; not vice versa. The good is a broader category than love. It is a good thing to hate evil and injustice. In some cases stoicism is a good thing. Your definition of love, "willing the 'good' of the other", depends on a prior understanding of the good. The good is already implicit in your definition of love.
True,I said love is the attitudinal dimension of the good.That accounts for their synonymy, Love is the motivational aspect of the good.
Joe:My view allows for aspects of determinism but I do feel free will must be central.
7:It depends on how you define freedom. Your theodicy seems to assume a metaphysical kind of free will, but I thought you subscribed to circumstantial free will, not metaphysical (libertarian) free will.
I think there is both,I see determinism as modular, things are mostly freewill with small lumps of determinism.
7th Stooge, what you're saying is true if love is only a sweet emotion, but I think it's so much more. Hating injustice and evil is a necessary part of love, for how can love not be against harm to the beloved?
7th Stooge, what you're saying is true if love is only a sweet emotion, but I think it's so much more. Hating injustice and evil is a necessary part of love, for how can love not be against harm to the beloved?
I wasn't assuming love is just a sweet emotion. Anything imaginable can be good depending on the context. I was saying that love is among the things that are good.
"I was saying that love is among the things that are good."
In fact, it is from love itself that all else which is good springs fourth.
True,I said love is the attitudinal dimension of the good.That accounts for their synonymy, Love is the motivational aspect of the good.
If love is just the motivational aspect of the good, then love and the good can't be synonymous. Much of the good is not motivational. Also, I think it's plausible that justice, for instance, doesn't have to be motivated by love, unless that's the way you are arbitrarily defining justice ("the distributive aspect of love"), but in that case, you can't possibly be wrong!
I think there is both,I see determinism as modular, things are mostly freewill with small lumps of determinism.
Yes, but are you using the term 'free will' in the circumstantial sense, as in being free of external constraints, being free to act in accordance with your desires, even if your desires are determined, or in the metaphysical, libertarian sense of being free to have done otherwise than what you actually did?
Joe: True,I said love is the attitudinal dimension of the good.That accounts for their synonymy, Love is the motivational aspect of the good.
7:If love is just the motivational aspect of the good, then love and the good can't be synonymous. Much of the good is not motivational. Also, I think it's plausible that justice, for instance, doesn't have to be motivated by love, unless that's the way you are arbitrarily defining justice ("the distributive aspect of love"), but in that case, you can't possibly be wrong!
Joseph Fletcher thought it was.Love can be that and still be more
7: I think there is both,I see determinism as modular, things are mostly freewill with small lumps of determinism.
7:Yes, but are you using the term 'free will' in the circumstantial sense, as in being free of external constraints, being free to act in accordance with your desires, even if your desires are determined, or in the metaphysical, libertarian sense of being free to have done otherwise than what you actually did?
Joe:I hadn't gone so deeply into hair splitting. I think it includes both
3:25 PM
Post a Comment