THE FREEWILL DEFENCE
Free will, though it makes evil possible, also makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having - C.S. Lewis
The less [God] allows men to bring about large scale horrors, the less freedom and responsibility he gives them - Richard Swinburne
Theists often argue that natural evil is the result of an evil supernatural being, such as the Devil. The Devil is an angel who rebelled against God and seeks to bring evil into the world. He does this by tempting humans (increasing the amount of moral evil) and also by causing disease, natural disasters and accidents and possibly by corrupting other creatures, to produce animals that are carnivorous or poisonous.
This response involves "multiplying hypotheses" (besides the existence of God, we now have to believe in another supernatural being for whom there is little evidence) which OCCAM'S RAZOR tells philosophers to avoid doing
|
Theists also argue that natural evil is a result of the moral evil of human beings. Christians claim that the Adam and Eve's choice to disobey God led to ‘The Fall’. The Fall changed forever human beings, the natural world and the relationship between them:
|
|
There are counter-responses to this. Augustine of Hippo argues that all humans were "seminally present" in Adam's body and therefore share in his Fall - but this idea makes no sense in terms of modern biology.
Other Christians argue that all humans are supernaturally connected to Adam's Fall, but in a way that cannot be explained scientifically. In the past, when many people became kings or slaves based on things their ancestors had done, this idea might have seemed obvious. It's not obvious today and would be another example of "multiplying hypotheses" instead of Occam's Razor.
|
Natural processes alone give humans knowledge of the effects of their actions without inhibiting their freedom, and if evil is to be a possibility for them they must know how to allow it to occur - Richard Swinburne
A particular natural evil, such as physical pain, gives to the sufferer a choice - Richard Swinburne
IF THERE IS NO LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN A MAN’S FREELY CHOOSING THE GOOD ON ONE, OR SEVERAL OCCASIONS, THERE CANNOT BE A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IN HIS FREELY CHOOSING THE GOOD ON EVERY OCCASION - J.L. MACKIE
Mackie's position is known as COMPATIBILISM - the idea that human freewill is compatible with (can exist alongside) a God who determines in advance that we always do the right thing.
If Mackie is right and freewill and God's determinism are compatible, then freewill is no solution to the Logical Problem of Evil because God did not have to choose between "innocent automata" and freewilled beings who behave badly; there was a third option: |
THE OBVIOUSLY BETTER POSSIBILITY OF MAKING BEINGS WHO WOULD ACT FREELY BUT ALWAYS GO RIGHT - J.L. MACKIE
POWER OR ABILITY TO DO OTHERWISE THAN ONE IN FACT DOES - PETER VAN INWAGEN
Inwagen invites us to imagine choices as being like a traveler choosing between different roads. The traveler is only able to choose roads that fork from the road he is already on. The only choices we are able to make are choices which are a continuation of our past. Making choices feels like having one “road” (the past) behind us and two or more different “roads” (future actions) in front of us. But if our actions are determined, then our journey through life is like traveling (in one direction only) on a road which has no branches. There are other roads, leading to other destinations - but we can't get to any of these other roads from the road we are actually on.
So if compatibilism is true, our actual future is our only possible future; we can never choose or do anything other than what we actually do. This contradicts the definition of freewill. |
The mystery of freewill beautifully expressed in Robert Frost''s poem The Road Less Traveled
|
WHAT VALUE OR MERIT WOULD THERE BE IN FREE CHOICES IF THESE WERE RANDOM ACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE AGENT? - J.L. MACKIE
"Freewill Defence" is a term used for any way of involving freewill in a theodicy. However THE Freewill Defence (FWD) is a particular argument developed by Alvin Plantinga in God, Freedom & Evil (1977). Plantinga claims that his argument is not a theodicy or solution. It is a freewill DEFENCE because it responds to the sort of criticisms made by J.L. Mackie. At best, the FWD shows that it is reasonable to believe in God in a world that has evil and suffering in it.
|
the actualization of a world W containing moral good is not up to God alone; it also depends upon what the significantly free creatures of W would do - Alvin Plantinga
the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question - J.L. Mackie
YES
If God is good and wise he would want to create creatures that can choose how to respond to him, by loving him or by rejecting him. This involves giving them freewill. A world in which creatures can exercrise freewill must be a world in which they can choose to hurt each other and it must also be a world with the potential for natural evil too.
Freewill is incompatible with God determining everything. Though it is logically possible for there to be a world where freewilled creatures only choose to do good, it's up to freewilled creatures to actualise that world; God cannot actualise it for them. This is why Plantinga calls the making of a moral world "a shared venture" between humans and God.
|
NO
If God is omnipotent then he has the option of creating creatures who can choose to do good or evil but who always choose to do good. This is the view that freewill is compatible with God determining everything. Since he didn't create this sort of world, we must conclude that God is responsible for evil.
Even if freewill removes the logical Problem of Evil, it leaves the Evidential Problem of Evil, because this world contains far more evil and suffering than is needed simply for moral self-improvement or meaningful choices. A world with considerably less suffering than ours would still not be a "toy world" as Swinburne calls it.
|