The Problem of Evil and the Free Will defence.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-03-31 12:23pm

“He who does not punish evil commands it to be done.”
- Leonardo Da Vinci

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” - Epicurus

This essay will look at one of the arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (Abrahamic) concept of a god and the defence offered up against it. Before we start looking at the arguments, it's important to understand what they're addressing, the god in question is not the one described in the details of the Torah, Bible or Quoran, it is however the one often talked about by theologians as the monotheistic god of choice. This god is described as being all powerful (omnipotent) all knowing (omniscient) and perfectly good (omnibenevolent). The argument against this god known as the problem of evil states that such a being cannot exist based on the world around us now.

The argument from evil can basically be summed up as follows:
1. If a god exists it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
2. The existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of such a being.
3. Evil exists.
4. Such a being does not exist.

The reason evil is said to be incompatible with such a being is the idea that a good being would use its power to try and eliminate evil, and that therefore an all powerful good being would eliminate all evil. Most people are willing to admit that evil exists in the world and thus must contend with the problem of evil if they wish to subscribe to the Abrahamic god or alter the properties to either drop omnipotence or omnibenevolence to make the problem disappear. There are various defences offered up to try and deal with the problem of evil, the most well known of these is the free will defence.

The free will defence is based on the idea that the god offered up by the Abrahamic traditions would wish for humans to have the capacity for free. It then goes on to say that it is this human capacity of free will that allows for the existence of evil. The idea is that free will is by itself such an incredible good that it outweighs all the evil that it can cause due to people being bastards to one another.

"The explosion [was] deemed an act of God. But which God...? What God would be hanging around Heathrow trying to catch the 3:37 to Oslo?" - Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul.

One possible retort to this is that human free will can only account for some of the evil in the world, the evil that has conscious cause behind it. This means that other evils such as floods, famines and meteors or lightning from on high (which ironically insurance companies often write off as "acts of god") are not driven by entities with free will. This is referred to as the problem of natural evil and it render the free will defence ineffective as free will does not absolve the proposed god of responsibility for the nature of the world that it created. The defense used against this is just to state that this must be the best possible world since the god posited as creator would only create the best possible world. This then means that there is no problem with natural evil as it cannot be removed since, they contend, an omnipotent being cannot do something that is logically impossible and improving the perfect is logically impossible.

The classic retort today to this idea however is that an all powerful being would be able to create creatures that would always choose to freely do good. There are various arguments that dispute this, often setting out that there can be no good without some suffering to overcome and thus demonstrate such good, most shy away from this though because it has an unpleasant implication for the concept of an all good and all perfect god. Such a god would have no struggle with which to demonstrate goodness.

Some people claim that combining free will with always freely choosing good would be a contradiction, that you have to be able to choose evil in order to be able to be free, but most accept that there is no logical contradiction with always freely choosing good. This then means that another level must come into play to maintain the defense.

"In fact, no gods anywhere play chess. They prefer simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve Transcendence but Go Straight to Oblivion; a key to the understanding of all religion is that a god's idea of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs." - Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters.

The most interesting defense offered up at this point is that of divine intent. That the god in question has particular aims in mind for humans. The main aim is to have us freely come to worship this entity, which means that creating us in such a manner that our free will would always select good would interfere with our ability to freely worship this being. Since it would interfere with the divine intent, despite being within divine power, there would be no removal of evil from the world. This however runs into two major problems:

1. Ascribing of particular intent to the divine entity
2. Placing personal desires above the suffering of others.

The first is a matter of religion, it is an assertion for which specific religious teachings are required to generate it (in the particular article cited, Christian teachings). The second however is much easier to consider in general terms. By most standards offered up for what we would consider as being "good", choosing to inflict suffering on others in pursuit of a personal desire would be positively evil. By giving god this intent, it invalidates the fundamental property assigned to god of being "all good" thus brining us back to dropping the property of ombinbenevolence to remove the problem.

The problem of evil is often considered to be the most compelling positive argument for atheism, and with good cause given the state or arguments relating to it. The existence of evil is difficult to reconcile with an all loving and all powerful vision of god and to get any kind of reconciliation at all requires introducing more and more terms. Free will is considered to be the best defense, but it does not address the natural evil argument at all or deal with the problem of creating free will without the potential for evil. To deal with these, yet more terms need to be added, often just to try and rationalize around the problem.

It seems interesting that free will is considered to be by default a good thing, and such a good thing that it outweighs all potential evil it leads to. Why is the potential to do ill a good thing by default when looking at god? We certainly value the idea of freedom, but we do not prize it above all evil. As a society we will strip someone of freedom if we have good cause to believe they will commit evil against others. We have created entire organisations to try and remove the potential to do evil to others such as the police. Why then would not an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god intervene as society would to prevent evil? Are humans more interested in preventing evil than a perfect god? If so why call it perfect, and to borrow from the philosopher Epicurus, why then call him god?

Due to the questions raised which cannot be adequately answered by even the free will defence, the problem of evil leaves this author unconvinced of the existence of an Abrahamic god. To bluntly paraphrase the quote from Epicurus in modern language: You can have a god who is an asshole and powerful or you can have a god who is kind but powerless, but you cannot have one who is both kind and powerful...

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2006-03-31 12:45pm

Hm...

You've shown some problems I've noticed with the Free Will arguement. Although there is my favorite :

If Free Will - the choice to do evil - is such a good thing, why is it not present in Heaven?

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-03-31 12:46pm

Cyborg Stan wrote:Hm...

You've shown some problems I've noticed with the Free Will arguement. Although there is my favorite :

If Free Will - the choice to do evil - is such a good thing, why is it not present in Heaven?

Because then they've gotten their reward and they don't need to make decisions anymore, duh...

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2006-03-31 01:10pm

Where does the "God has a plan we just don't know it" come in? Sounds to me like the nBSG opening credits. God created man. Man rebelled. God has a plan.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-03-31 01:14pm

Stravo wrote:Where does the "God has a plan we just don't know it" come in? Sounds to me like the nBSG opening credits. God created man. Man rebelled. God has a plan.

That's just a variation on the ascribing particular desires to the divine bit...it's also patently not a good plan if it involves creating all the evil in the world. If he's all powerful, he could still do whatever he wanted without creating evil and suffering...unless what he wants is to create evil and suffering...in which case "all good" has to be swapped out for "insipid arsehole"...after all, in making people suffer just to have his plan, he's being selfish and placing his personal desires over the good of others.

If it's something we cannot understand, why call it "good"? The term has no meaning then.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-03-31 05:44pm

I heard that a guy name Mackie invented that argument. Then some other guy came and said there was a hidden premise in it, and then Mackie and all the other smart atheists agreed with that and that's why the problem of evil is never discussed by people knowledgeable in the philosophy of religion.

Well, that's what a dishonest idiot said to me not long ago, anyway. Turns out he doesn't even know what a hidden premise is... Then he went pretty much "there is evil because God wants there to be free will. I win". Which of course is a bad explanation for all the reasons listed in the OP, and when I told him about some of the problems, he said that he would "think about that". Then, not two days later, I find him making the same claims I just disputed.

But yeah, the free will defense is pretty ridiculous when you think about it. There are so many things that our "free will" already does not let us do, so why would it be so bad, or impossible (that's what another guy said; God is omnipotent, but he couldn't do it), for God to design the universe so it would not be possible to do evil?

Keevan_Colton wrote:That's just a variation on the ascribing particular desires to the divine bit...it's also patently not a good plan if it involves creating all the evil in the world.

I think the answer is obvious: God is one dumb shit. He has a plan, and it's omnistupid. And that's also the message of "Intelligent" Design, so I guess it makes sense...

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-03-31 05:58pm

Is the tl;dr version "God could have made it so only good choices were available, but free will would still have existed"? Because that's always my answer.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-03-31 06:02pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Is the tl;dr version "God could have made it so only good choices were available, but free will would still have existed"? Because that's always my answer.

Basically, yeah...the comeback I couldnt believe was that then people couldnt freely love and worship god, so he wouldnt do it...

Oh and Mackie was one of the folk I looked at for the essay.

There is the fun idea of getting folk to prove the existence of free will though as another out, but the prof that set the assignment said we were to assume free will can exist.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-31 10:09pm

I think you ought to explore the idea of symmetry between good and evil more -- i.e., the idea the good cannot exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa. I'm not sure how valid the idea is on its own, but one could certainly raise it as a counterpoint to the claim that a perfect being could not create evil.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-03-31 11:02pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Is the tl;dr version "God could have made it so only good choices were available, but free will would still have existed"? Because that's always my answer.
Basically, yeah...the comeback I couldnt believe was that then people couldnt freely love and worship god, so he wouldnt do it...

The comeback to that is "freely NOt worshipping god is bad?"

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-03-31 11:23pm

Surlethe wrote:I think you ought to explore the idea of symmetry between good and evil more -- i.e., the idea the good cannot exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa. I'm not sure how valid the idea is on its own, but one could certainly raise it as a counterpoint to the claim that a perfect being could not create evil.

It's not valid. There is no reason good couldn't exist without evil.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2006-03-31 11:34pm

How about the fact that God creates humans WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that they're going to burn in Hell? Free will my ass. God knows the future, so he knows the choices the person will make. If that's the case, he makes souls to burn in Hell.

Nice God.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-03-31 11:39pm

Zadius wrote:
Surlethe wrote:I think you ought to explore the idea of symmetry between good and evil more -- i.e., the idea the good cannot exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa. I'm not sure how valid the idea is on its own, but one could certainly raise it as a counterpoint to the claim that a perfect being could not create evil.
It's not valid. There is no reason good couldn't exist without evil.

In a world without evil, what is good?

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-03-31 11:45pm

Gandalf wrote:
Zadius wrote:
Surlethe wrote:I think you ought to explore the idea of symmetry between good and evil more -- i.e., the idea the good cannot exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa. I'm not sure how valid the idea is on its own, but one could certainly raise it as a counterpoint to the claim that a perfect being could not create evil.
It's not valid. There is no reason good couldn't exist without evil.
In a world without evil, what is good?

There are still morally neutral things to contrast with it for one thing.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2006-04-01 05:47am

Keevan_Colton wrote:Oh and Mackie was one of the folk I looked at for the essay.

You didn't happen to find anything hinting that he became convinced that the problem of evil was weak or flawed? The guy claimed that Mackie, and many other atheistic philosophy professors eventually did, but I couldn't find anything to back that up (and he wouldn't cite any sources beyond "go take a philosophy of religion course", and that William Craig said this and that (Craig I did find, and he doesn't seem to be a trustable source on anything, especially cosmology, which he seems to think that he knows better than Stephen Hawking) ).

It would be funny if he lied about that, too, because then I have more evidence that he lies more than he is telling the truth. Oh, and he once said that he had interviewed some physicists and that they supported his views on quantum mechanics (even though he denomstrated that he didn't even have a basic understanding of it). That reminded me of someone

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-04-01 07:57am

Surlethe wrote:I think you ought to explore the idea of symmetry between good and evil more -- i.e., the idea the good cannot exist without evil to contrast it, and vice versa. I'm not sure how valid the idea is on its own, but one could certainly raise it as a counterpoint to the claim that a perfect being could not create evil.

It's stupid; we've not got the freedom to breathe underwater without assistance, but we do have the freedom to assfuck kids and then slit their throats? Fuck any retard that thinks that's a sensible morally defined universe. Making a universe that somehow prevented such horrible acts would certainly be the moral thing to do, therefore, God is a dick.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-04-01 08:26am

Without the choice of good or evil our good choices are worthless, because they're dictated. If we accept the idea that mortal existence is a phase from which we can be judged, that freedom is essential.

One could argue this makes God imperfectly good. Others could argue that it's only the inherent imperfection in man that makes the system itself imperfect. *shrug*

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-04-01 08:34am

Lord Woodlouse wrote:Without the choice of good or evil our good choices are worthless, because they're dictated. If we accept the idea that mortal existence is a phase from which we can be judged, that freedom is essential.

Why would he use a mortal existance to judge anyone anyways? It's unnecesary, and you'd have to be one hell of a sadistic son of a bitch to allow evil to exist so you could send most people to eternal torment.

Lord Woodlouse wrote: One could argue this makes God imperfectly good. Others could argue that it's only the inherent imperfection in man that makes the system itself imperfect. *shrug*

The inherant imperfection in man that was put there by God? If you believe that one being created everything, then any imperfections present in that everything (IE the universe) were created by said being. Either way, it's God's imperfection that leads to evil in the world.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-04-01 08:48am

Zero132132 wrote:
Why would he use a mortal existance to judge anyone anyways? It's unnecesary, and you'd have to be one hell of a sadistic son of a bitch to allow evil to exist so you could send most people to eternal torment.

There's different interpretations on the nature of said torment. It is, certainly, if you believe in a fire and brimstone version of Hell. Or if you believe in Hell at all, for that matter.

Why? I would only be guessing, here, since I'm certainly not God. But my guess would be to make our judgement entirely our own responsibility.

Personally I think this means God can't be 100% omnipresent. But that's an opinion of mine that I think many people of faith would disagree with. *shrug*

The inherant imperfection in man that was put there by God? If you believe that one being created everything, then any imperfections present in that everything (IE the universe) were created by said being. Either way, it's God's imperfection that leads to evil in the world.

One could argue that, certainly. One could argue that God believed good without the choice to become good was inherently valueless.

It's an interesting look at morality, I think, and the notion that dictated morality has no value. I'm inclined to think it does not. Others disagree.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-04-01 10:36am

The judgement thing just brings us back to a God playing a sick little game.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2006-04-01 05:05pm

The judgement idea is just incompatible with the notion that god is omniscient, as he would then be able to know who would do what when, and the whole suffering/injustice mortal phase would be kinda worthless.

(This gets into the whole minority report thing. I kinda envisage a production line of souls, with the end just a straight drop into a burning pit, souls calling as they drop "Huh? Why?!?" and getting the response "You would have been evil, I just cut out the middle man". Bizarrely this makes the whole test thing seem more fair, as at the end you get to say on your way down "Ok, you got me, fair cop, i was evil". But still doesnt get around the issue of it then being evil and pointless to create these souls in the first place)

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-04-01 08:25pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:The judgement thing just brings us back to a God playing a sick little game.

If he's doing it purely for his own benefit, absolutely. I believe he does it for ours. That we'd rather make the choice ourselves. Heck, I know I would. I'm not sure I'd want my life mapped out with all the right turns made aware to me.

Part of that does indeed mean that people will suffer. But we'll also have enormous moments of joy.

As I say, and to address the point below yours, I don't necisarily think God IS 100% omnipresent. *shrug* So I'm probably not the best person to be answering you here, because I'm not exactly following popular doctrine on that note.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-04-02 12:16am

Lord Woodlouse wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:The judgement thing just brings us back to a God playing a sick little game.
If he's doing it purely for his own benefit, absolutely. I believe he does it for ours.

It's for our benefit that he sends us to Hell?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-04-02 12:23am

Lord Woodlouse wrote: There's different interpretations on the nature of said torment. It is, certainly, if you believe in a fire and brimstone version of Hell. Or if you believe in Hell at all, for that matter.

Still, he's punishing humans for inadequecies that he hardwired into them. It's still immoral, and furthermore, fucking stupid for a being who can know the entirety of the future before it begins. Or will you next shift your definition of God to one that isn't omniscient?

Lord Woodlouse wrote: Why? I would only be guessing, here, since I'm certainly not God. But my guess would be to make our judgement entirely our own responsibility.

How is it our responsibility? This God fucker is omniscient, and he created the universe, so he knew the eventualities of whatever initial conditions he began the world with. He set up the initial conditions, and all things afterwards were and are his responsibility.

Lord Woodlouse wrote: Personally I think this means God can't be 100% omnipresent. But that's an opinion of mine that I think many people of faith would disagree with. *shrug*

Omnipresent or not, he still must be one silly son of a bitch to bother judging actions he caused by standards he invented .

Lord Woodlouse wrote: One could argue that, certainly. One could argue that God believed good without the choice to become good was inherently valueless.

Choice can't exist in a universe with a being who knows the definite future, and who manipulated the initial conditions so as to controll all actions in the universe.

Lord Woodlouse wrote: It's an interesting look at morality, I think, and the notion that dictated morality has no value. I'm inclined to think it does not. Others disagree.

In a universe with an omniscient god who set up all the rules himself, there is nothing that isn't dictated.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2006-04-02 12:35am

Zadius wrote:There are still morally neutral things to contrast with it for one thing.

And how do you define good, without also making evil?

If you define a "good" act as something positive, then by use of the term positive, there has to be a negative.