Plantinga's Free Will Defence

This is about the Logical Problem of Evil, and Plantinga's "Free Will Defence". I am drawing largely from this web page, and quotes come from there:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

Logical Problem of Evil

The page kind of summarises the Logical Problem of Evil in this claim:
(18) It is not morally permissible for God to allow evil and suffering to occur unless he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so.
The issue then is that either there is some such reason or God cannot exist, and Plantinga invokes free will as that reason.

Morally Significant Free Will

Plantinga holds that people have a morally significant free will - that is, they can choose good actions and they can choose bad actions (which, incidentally God cannot, so by this argument God does not have morally significant free will). I am not sure where I stand on the free will issue, but I certainly cannot show Plantinga is wrong, and all Plantinga needs is the possibility he is right, so I will assume morally significant free will exists.

But does it have value?
God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds.

There are a few assumptions in there.

Assumption 1: Only a being with morally significant free will is capable of having a relationship with God
Assumption 2: Only a being with morally significant free will is capable of loving another such being
Assumption 3: Only a being with morally significant free will is capable of doing a good deed
Assumption 4: The capacity to do these things is more important than preventing suffering

I can see no reason to suppose any of those are true. However, I concede that they might be, so it is still possible that Plantinga's argument works.

Impossible? No!

We need to quickly consider omnipotent. Plantinga claims that an omnipotent god is still limited; he cannot do the logically impossible. This is important to note as it does then restrict the type of universe God can create. This is entirely reasonable, as far as I can see.

From there, Plantinga's argument requires that it be logically impossible for God to create a world with free will and with no evil. Okay, so I grant that God cannot do it if it is logically impossible, but I ask; What about heaven?

Obviously there is no evil in heaven, thus, if Plantinga is right, then logically there is no free will in heaven. And therefore those in heaven cannot have a relationship with God, cannot love one another, cannot do good deeds (remember the assumptions above).

A False Dichotomy

So how does morally significant free will means that there must be evil? From the web page:
If God is going to causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong in W3, there is no way that he could allow them to be free in a morally significant sense. Peterson (1998, p. 39) writes,
if a person is free with respect to an action A, then God does not bring it about or cause it to be the case that she does A or refrains from doing A. For if God brings it about or causes it to be the case in any manner whatsoever that the person either does A or does not do A, then that person is not really free.

God can’t have it both ways. He can create a world with free creatures or he can causally determine creatures to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong every time; but he can’t do both. God can forcibly eliminate evil and suffering (as in W2) only at the cost of getting rid of free will.
The argument would seem to be that either God gives us complete free will to do as we like, or he "is going to causally determine people in every situation". And this is where, to me, it all falls down. For me there is a middle ground - God gives us free will, but he steps in occasionally. He steps in just before the rapist attacks, just before the terrorists strike, he alerts people just before the tsunami strikes.

Does that stop people having morally significant free will? I do not think it does. It stops the rapist at that moment, yes, but if God does nothing, the rapist's victim losses her free will. Warning about an impending tsunami gives people choices - enhancing their free will.

Further, the Bible specifically claims that God does just this! Throughout scripture we see examples of God intervening occasionally, and so it is especially baffling that Plantinga has ignored this possibility.

Plantinga argument would seem to be founded on a false dichotomy, and that would seem to break it.

Natural Evil

So far, this can only explain moral evil, but Plantinga claims it applies to natural evil too. Natural disasters are not in themselves evil, of course, as they have no sense of morality. Natural evil is God allowing (or causing) then to happen.

Plantinga claims natural evil could be due to demons (from here):
Plantinga extends the Free Will Defense to natural evil by holding that it is possible that all natural evil (destructive floods and earthquakes, for example) is really moral evil, because it is possible that it is evil resulting from the free actions of non-human agents, namely, Satan and his minions.
What Plantinga is doing is saying there is no natural evil, as intelligent being with morally significant free will are the root cause of all evil, and he has, he claims, already solved that.

So the claim is that God desires for Satan and his minions to have free will. Remember, the first reason cited for God giving free will to people was that he "created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds". Are we to suppose that God does not stop Satan because he wants a relationship with Satan? Or so Satan can love us? Or so Satan can perform good deeds?

I find that somewhat implausible, to say the least.

But it gets worse. Plantinga's argument might be fine for early Christians, but nowadays we have this thing called science. We know earthquakes are due to plate tectonics, we know diseases are due to viruses, etc.

We know that natural evil is due to how the universe is. If it was created by God, then natural evil is here because of how he chose to create the universe.

Significantly, Plantinga is not claiming that natural evil is due to demons, he is only claiming that it is a possibility. Technically, that is all he needs. But when his argument rests on a claim that he does not believe is true himself, I am going to reject it as wholy implausible, even if possible.

I guess we can summarise then:

It is possible for an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God to exist and to allow evil in the world, but only if we assume that all natural disasters are caused by demons that God allows to gave free will so that they can relationships with him, to love one another and to do good deeds.

Once the false dichotomy is explained, anyway.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it was consi
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m
Read more