20c Does evil imply atheism - Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense

[CarneadesOfCyrene]

I am curious. I have a couple of arguments that seems to poke some holes in this defense. The Partial Free Will argument (/watch?v=znh8-N6QYXE) and the Free Will Dilemma (/watch?v=iSwkBsBARwM). How would you think Plantinga would respond?

[pdoylemi]

I have done a whole video on premise #3 (before I knew it was part of Plantinga's argument) and I still think it defeats any free will defense - because an omnipotent god can foresee the outcome of any universe he creates, he can choose to create one that unfolds this way, thus premise #4 is false. Simply asserting that it is inconsistent, after acknowledging the possibility is intellectually dishonest. For an omnipotent god ANY logically possible outcome is attainable.

And while this point is only specific to some religions (Christianity/Islam at least) if the value of free will is greater than the value of not allowing "sin" then why would their gods not allow sin in heaven?

[rozzerallen]

@rozzerallen You are completely right though. I am not arguing for a Judeo-Christian God specifically, I just find the atheist position a little uncomfortable. You could consider my arguments for general theism rather than Yahweh specifically!

[matthewtaylorbrown]

Free Will is not a subject by itself without the context of a deity. The concept of Free Will is a non-issue for the atheist.

[rozzerallen]

@matthewtaylorbrown I agree completely in terms of individual human's experience, the is an experiential claim and not a truth claim. If atoms are already moving, the cause and effect chain has already started and (due to the inherent relativity in time, thankyou Einstein!) everything is pre-determined. During the M.A. in Philosophy & Ethics, I've never read an atheist account that contends with this successfully.

You might say this does not matter, but it completely shatters morality...

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@rozzerallen Predetermination is a concept of and for the Christian and other theists. We don't observe predetermination in the world or universe; we see cause and effect.

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@rozzerallen One can say it is not a truth claim, but we can measure and test this truth claim. It is repeatable in 100% of cases. Brownian motion and other chaos effects won't allow for very small or long-term pre-determination. Light doesn't travel in a straight line from a source to a distant object millions of light-years away. It is distorted by gravity along the way. The speed or relative speed of light does not change this.
Morality exists even if it was predetermined.

[matthewtaylorbrown]

@rozzerallen Again, I consider the concept of predetermination to be rubbish. So, your question isn't valid for me. Do I judge them for their immoral actions, you bet.

[OriginLinear]

I would like to know what you mean by 'genuine free will?' Do neither God or Angels have genuine free will? And if they do have 'genuine free will' then premise 2 is not a contradiction...

[wildhias]

I guess Plantinga cannot be a Calvinist? - does he have to be an Open theist? is Molinism compatible with the free will defense?

[lawrencestanley]

The problem of the existence of evil and the so-called "free will" of man is resolved simply by the fact that the Bible teaches that God wills that evil exists because He has a purpose for it, but He is not its creator.

1) How can God will evil to exist, but not be its creator?
Anything that happens in this world cannot happen apart from divine sovereignty. For instance, if something happens in this world either by the power of men or by the power of nature, God always has the power and authority *at least* to prevent it from happening. If He does not prevent something from happening, then He has chosen to let it happen – that doesn’t mean necessarily that he applauds it or is in favor of it in that He gives His divine sanction to it, but He does allow it, and in allowing it, He is making a sovereign decision over it. And if He has decreed that something shall happen, then He maintains His sovereignty over it.

2) What is human will? And is it free?
The ‘will’ is the faculty of choice – the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing, and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present in the mind before there can be any choice, and in every act of the will there is preference – the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice, something which determines the decision, hence the will cannot be sovereign since it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations and is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself. Hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if their effect, it must be their servant, and if the will is their servant, then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute freedom of it.

3) How can God ordain whatsoever comes to pass, and yet man still be accountable for his sins?
The Bible is very clear that God ordains the ends as well as the means - God carries out his all-inclusive plan by a variety of means (as seen in Isaiah 10:5-11). God may directly intervene, and if He chooses to do so, then His intention is always good. Or, He may achieve His purpose through the use of an indirect agent (e.g., other men, nations, or through the laws of nature), and if through other men, then their intentions could indeed be evil, even though the end result is a righteous determination of God (Genesis 50:20). He may even fulfill His plan by taking His hands off in a given situation (the phrase “God gave them over” appears three times in Romans 1:24-28). But God is in control regardless of what means He chooses to use, and regardless of the wicked intentions of other men, His ordinations are always for the glory of God, and He will always perfectly fulfill that purpose unhindered.

[DiscoveringReligion]

Plantinga contends that in order to have genuine free will we must have the ability to sin and commit evil acts. Is that correct? Is that always true? Are there no instances where free will exists absent sin and evil, such as in, say, heaven? Can we assume free will exists in heaven? Can we also assume heaven will not contain blaspheming, lying, coveting, thieving, enslaving, raping, murdering, etc.? If so, I fail to see how the free will defense has any merit.

[rozzerallen]

@matthewtaylorbrown The concept of Free Will is actually quite a large for the atheist. If there is no mind behind matter, thought itself is a self stultifying concept. Atoms move without any freedom and everything is pre-determined. There is no such thing as choice...

[pdoylemi]

The problem is that Plantinga is wrong on his second premise. It is a common mistake to think that free will somehow ONLY applies to moral choices. Our free will is bounded by the laws of nature - we cannot choose any action we wish, so our free will is already bounded. It is a false argument to assume that an omnipotent god could not set the bounds differently, and still allow us free will within those bounds. Thus, the attempt to do something this god considers immoral could result in immediate death, unconsciousness, or some other impediment. Just as my choice to jump of the Sears Tower, flap my arms and fly automatically results in my death, so moral choices could be the same.

In such a world, we would still be free to choose our friends, our careers, which sports teams we like, our hobbies, our mates, etc., but we physically could not choose evil. By simply making evil choices physically impossible, such choices would then be viewed as no different from choosing to lift a 3 ton boulder with a feather.

[rozzerallen]

@matthewtaylorbrown So you would be happy morally judging a rapist or a murderer, even if they couldn't help their actions?

[pdoylemi]

Plantinga fails to think about statistics in his argument. You alluded to the flawed thinking when you discussed the idea that god would "arrange the causes" in such a way that no one ever chose evil, but this need not be the case. The universe could be exactly as it is, in every respect other than the choices we make. Before creation, an omniscient god could foresee how each possible world turns out. Maybe one less butterfly in the Garden of Eden, tips the scales forever - whatever. Or maybe there is no "cause" that makes one world without evil, it's just that statistically it is possible, and god can see in which potential universe that happens, but he chose not to create that universe. And, of course, none of this addresses "natural evil" such as the recent hurricanes an tsunamis which cause so much suffering.

But then, Plantinga defends the ontological argument, so whatever brilliance he may possess, I find his reasoning on this subject to be quite suspect.