Freedom and Evil

Mysteryi

An argument that is used against theism is one that has to do with the problem of evil. The basic argument looks a little something like the following:
1. If God exists, there would not be any evil in the world.
2. But there is evil in the world.
3. So there is no God.
Premise one that implies that God would not want any evil and would also have the power to eliminate evil. While God would prefer to get rid of all the evil and bad stuff, he would only do it if he deemed it to be for the best. And if getting rid of it all is not for the best, then he would not go through with it. For example, there are plenty of things in this world that we would consider bad and inconvenient to us humans like bugs. They do physical harm to us, swarm our homes, contaminate our foods, etc. But if God were to eliminate all of them because they are bad to us, then other animals that really on bugs as a food source would suffer. As a result, animals like birds would as be eliminated, and bird are more often than not considered beautiful creatures on here on Earth. We can also talk about the evil deeds that humans commit against on another. But preventing humans from committing evil and bad deeds would be impossible without also stripping away free will. So if having human freedom is better than having no evil, God would allow its existence.
1. If God exists, then he would make the best world possible.
2. A world with both human freedom and evil is better than a world without both human freedom and evil.
3. There is both human freedom and evil.
4. So a world with both human freedom and evil is the best possible world.
People may not like this view since God is a omnipotent and omniscience being that would be able to do anything, including making a world with human freedom and no evil. But I argue that God has the power and knowledge to do anything that is possible. So its not that God can’t make a world with human freedom and no evil, it is just not possible make such a thing. So is the problem of evil really a problem?

Pfhorrest

This is just Plantinga's free will theodicy, and it depends entirely upon an incompatibilist conception of free will. On a compatibilist conception of free will, there is no contradiction in God making humans in a way that they would never do evil, and allowing them free will; in fact, on my compatibilist take on free will (which is similar to that of Harry Frankfurt or Susan Wolf), free will is equivalent to moral reasoning having greater control over behavior, so giving humans freer will would make them more moral, not less.

Also, as regard "natural evils" like bugs and such as you list (and, you know, natural disasters and so on), that amounts to just denying premise 2 of the first premise, by saying that those things are not actually evil, since they're "for the best". Same thing really for the man-made evils, IMO; yeah maybe God allows innocent children to be sold into sex slavery, "but it's for the best, honest."

god must be atheist

1. If God exists, then he would make the best world possible.
2. A world with both human freedom and evil is better than a world without both human freedom and evil.
3. There is both human freedom and evil.
4. So a world with both human freedom and evil is the best possible world. — Mysteryi

This does not address the issue of bugs and everyone else's excrements contaminate the drinking water, for instance.

It can be argued that there is no human freedom, but there is evil created by god.

god must be atheist

People may not like this view since God is a omnipotent and omniscience being that would be able to do anything, including making a world with human freedom and no evil. But I argue that God has the power and knowledge to do anything that is possible. So its not that God can’t make a world with human freedom and no evil, it is just not possible make such a thing. So is the problem of evil really a problem? — Mysteryi

This is all hypothetical. You can't possibly prove your point by other than assuming the conclusion. Which is precisely what you have done.

whatsgoinon

↪Mysteryi

I believe that I understand the gist of your argument. However it is somewhat vague. Why would having both human free will and evil be the best possible world? Simply because that is the one we live on now, and God created it?

According to skeptical theists, they might say that it is the evil that pushes us towards a better relationship with God. I think it is important to note when making an argument like this, an example of how some believe that evil is at times introduced into our lives to benefit us and our character.

When you say “So if having human freedom is better than having no evil, God would allow its existence,” it seems like you are stating that having human freedom would be better without evil, however that is the world we are in as you describe it in the outline of your argument.

Because we brought evil in, according to the story of Adam and Eve, wouldn’t that technically be on us for ruining our own human freedom?
It is also possibly according to multiverse theodicy that God could have created other universes that have more human freedom and less evil, but like you said, maybe this is the best one.

It seems like with premise 1 of your argument, as you said, we wouldn’t necessarily understand what the best possible world would be since we are simply humble humans that have no way of knowing what God considers to be moral or evil in his own definition.

I’d like to believe that we do live on the best possible world, and that the evil we encounter is meant to benefit us most of the time but I still think that the problem of evil is not fully solved in that way.

OmniscientNihilist

↪Mysteryi

the problem of evil is not a logical one, its an emotional one.

emotionally we dont understand how someone with the power to stop something terrible would not do so.

so you can refute the bad logic all you want but the emotional problem will still be there

Mysteryi

I argue that there is human freedom and evil is not created by God but is a byproduct of giving humans free will. Plantinga’s defense on free will that even if God desires to eliminate all evil, he desires free creatures more and so evil might still exist. So if God is one with the power to eliminate all evil, knowledge to eliminate all evil, and the desire to eliminate all evil allows it to exist, then he would not be the one to have created evil. Instead, Plantinga explains that its possible that if God exists, free will could be something that can only exist only if it is sometimes abused to make all sort of good and evil decisions. And creating such creatures with free will is so good that it outweighs the evil they could or will perform. This defense can be seen as:
1. A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a world containing no free creatures.
2. God can create significantly free creatures.
3. To be significantly free is to be capable of both moral good and moral evil.
4. If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they would not be free.
5. Therefore, God cannot cause significantly free creatures to do only what is right.
So I do not think God created evil, or allows evil to exists because he is evil. I believe that God wants his creations to be free and they can only be free if they are capable of both moral good and moral evil without being influenced to only do what is right.

Ferzeo

↪Mysteryi

As others have said, this argument, even with free will, does not account for gratuitous evil. These are evils that do not serve a higher purpose and are unjustified, such as natural disasters or kids with cancer. I would like to support your argument by saying that the evils we see are never gratuitous. We can say that they do not serve a higher purpose, but we cannot say they are unjustified. My argument is based on the account of the Fall of Man given in Genesis 3:

1. If humans choose to eat of the fruit, then we will suffer death and Hell (spiritual separation/death).
2. Humans did choose to eat the fruit.
3. Therefore, humans deserve to suffer death and Hell. (1,2 MP)

I think this argument shows that humans are deserving of great evil just on the basis of being fallen creatures. Furthermore, I think that God is a gracious being and as such, he allows us to live in a world of sin, as opposed to instant judgment and punishment, with the chance to amend our relationship with him (i.e. belief on Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins). This is payment for our spiritual death, but we still must pay for our physical death and suffering. So, our free will combined with our deserving of worse sufferings, eliminates the possibility of gratuitous evils, because they came from the free decision to become fallen creatures.

I realize that this argument is one that many Christians would not be willing to accept, but the Bible does say that everyone is a sinner and that the wages of that sin is death. So, on that alone we can conclude that any suffering we experience is less than we deserve. I also would like to say that this argument is not comfortable, and I think that is because when we see horrible things, we do not want to be the cause of those things. I think that a major part of understanding the greatness of God is understanding the vileness of humans.

Freedom and Evil

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions