The Philosurfer

The Free Will Defense

by Leave a Comment

Why does God allow evil? The Free Will Defense argues that it is a necessary consequence of free will, and that free will is worth the evil we suffer. Is this a sufficient reason? And is it possible to have free will without evil? 

NOTES

The Problem of Evil

  • 1. If God exists, He could prevent evil
    • S1: all-powerful & all-knowing
  • 2. If God exists, He would prevent evil
    • S1: all-good
  • So, 3. If God exists, evil doesn’t exist
  • 4. Evil exists
  • So, 5. God doesn’t exist

The Free Will Defense

  • 1. We have free will
  • 2. Evil is a necessary consequence of free will
    • O1: free will without consequences
      • S1: God could have made our brains such that we can make free will decisions to do the right thing, but every time we choose to do the wrong thing our brains stop us
      • R1: no consequences = no personal growth
      • R2: free will violation
    • O2: free will agents who don’t sin
      • 1. It is possible that no free will agent does evil
        • S1: we are only morally responsible for things that are possible for us, so anytime it is impossible for us not to make a choice, it can’t be a moral choice, and therefore it can’t be an evil choice
      • 2. God can create anything that is possible
        • S1: all-knowing and all-powerful
      • 3. Therefore, God could have made a world in which no free will agent does evil
      • R1 (Open Theism): free will decisions known ahead of time are determined, and therefore not free will
        • O1: they are determined by the agent, which is exactly free will
      • R2 (Molinism): there isn’t a possible world where no agents sin
        • O1: special pleading
      • N1: the limits of this objection
        • This doesn’t show God doesn’t allow some evil for the sake of our free will
        • It only shows God didn’t need to use evil as a means to an end: the good end of free will
        • Imagine I make the evil choice to steal a cupcake
        • God might have allowed the evil because it is good that I have free will even if it is bad that I steal
        • But, God also could have actualized the possible world in which I don’t steal the cupcake
        • So, there is a further question as to why God would actualize the cupcake-stealing world vs. the non-cupcake-stealing world
        • But, in the cupcake-stealing world, it’s still true that it was good for me to have free will even though I used it for villainy
    • O3: evils that can’t be explained by free will
      • S1: natural evils involve no free will choices (e.g., earthquakes, cancer)
        • Sometimes natural evils and free will evils are intertwined, like when companies push smoking on kids (free will evil) knowing that it causes cancer (natural evil)
        • But, there are also natural evils that have nothing to do with free will evils, like natural disasters that aren’t the result of climate change or anything like that
      • S2: evils suffered by people other than the free will agent
        • 1. The good of having free will is enjoyed by the free will agent
        • 2. But, the evil suffered is often suffered by someone other than the free will agent
        • 3. So, the good of one person is at the expense of another, which seems unfair
      • R1: Fallen World Theory
        • 1. The world began without any natural evils or evils suffered by people other than the free will agent
        • 2. Someone used their free will choice to do something evil: the Original Sin
        • 3. This Original Sin corrupted the world so that natural evils and evils suffered by people other than the free will agent would occur
        • 4. So, all of these evils are consequences of an original free will evil, the Original Sin
        • 5. The potential for the evil of the Original Sin was a necessary consequence of free will
        • 6. So, all evil, including natural evils and those suffered by people other than the free will agent, are the necessary consequence of free will
        • O1: the corruptibility of the world may have been a consequence of the Original Sin, but it wasn’t a necessary consequence, so these aren’t necessary consequences of Original Sin
          • S1: God could have made a world that doesn’t get corrupted into having natural evils when an original sin happens
          • S2: God could have put us in an isolated world with things that perfectly resemble people (e.g., a computer simulation or robots that are indistinguishable from humans) so that our free will choices don’t affect anyone else
    • 3. Free will is worth the evil
    • A1: most people wouldn’t give up their free will to avoid evil
    • A2: many things we value that require free will seem worth the evil
      • S1: heroism

Important notes

  • If the Free Will Defense fails, that doesn’t mean the Problem of Evil succeeds
    • S1: premise (2) remains unmotivated because God isn’t a moral agent like ourselves so that we can predict everything He would do
    • S2: there are possible other reasons for God to allow evil
  • If the Free Will Defense fails, free will might still explain why God allows some evils, just not all evils

Molinism and the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

Molinism is a view that attempts to resolve two doctrines that seem at odds with each other. First, that God predestines an elect people for salvation. Second, that we freely choose salvation. Both doctrines and the problem itself come from Christianity, though the tenets can be shared in other monotheistic religions. The Molinist solution is that God predestines us by creating the right circumstances that would lead to us freely choosing salvation. 

The Problem of Evil is the question of why God would allow evil. If we accept the Molinist solution to the first problem, we could possibly use it to answer the second: God allows evil because it is part of the circumstances that would lead a person to choose salvation.

Is Molinism tenable? Can it be combined in this way to solve the Problem of Evil?

NOTES

  • Problem of Evil
    • 1. If God exists, then He could prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-powerful and all-knowing
    • 2. If God exists, then He would prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-good
    • So, 3. If God exists, then evil doesn’t exist
    • 4. Evil exists
    • So, 5. God doesn’t exist
  • Molinism
    • The following are three kinds of knowledge God has in the logical order He has them:
      • Natural knowledge = God's knowledge of all necessary truths (e.g., "2+2=4", "A squared circle is impossible")
      • Middle knowledge = knowledge of all CCFs
        • Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom (CCFs) = what a person would do in a possible circumstance that doesn't actually happen
      • Free knowledge = knowledge of what He decides to create
    • The Molinist picture of creation:
      • God begins with natural knowledge
      • He decides to create
      • He accesses middle knowledge to determine what each person would do in every possible circumstance (i.e., He looks at the CCFs)
      • He chooses to create a world with all the circumstances such that all the people He wants to predestine for salvation use their free will to choose salvation
      • God creates
      • God has free knowledge of what He chose
  • Adapting Molinism for the Problem of Evil
    • Evil is a part of all the worlds where the elect choose salvation
      • Possible addition: God chooses the most people to get saved possible
    • God creates only as much evil as is necessary for the incomparable good of salvation
  • Objections to Molinism
    • O1 (Open Theists): free will can't be known ahead of time because then it is determined
      • R1: it is determined by the agent, which is exactly what free will is
    • O2 (Grounding Objection): there is nothing outside of God to make these CCFs true
      • This is especially concerning since these are contingent truths
  • Objections to Molinism used to explain the Problem of Evil
    • Before God created, all the people that currently exist were only possible people
    • It was possible for those people to choose other than they did at any point
    • So, there was also a possible person identical to each person that exists, only who chose only things that would avoid evil/lead to salvation
    • If God had only allowed evil as a necessary condition for good/salvation, then He would have just created these other possible people and avoided evil in the first place

The Not-Good God Response to the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

How could a good God allow evil? This whole problem would go away if God wasn’t totally good. But, is that reasonable?

NOTES

  • Problem of Evil
    • 1. If God exists, then He could prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-powerful and all-knowing
    • 2. If God exists, then He would prevent evil
      • S1: He is all-good
    • So, 3. If God exists, then evil doesn’t exist
    • 4. Evil exists
    • So, 5. God doesn’t exist
  • The Evil God Response
    • God is not all good
    • So, the support argument for (2) is false
    • O1: this is an atheist position, not a theist position
      • R1: “God is evil” assumes God exists
      • R2: if “God is evil” is true, then the only reason to believe (2) is false, so the Problem of Evil fails
    • O2: God has no reason to be evil
      • 1. If God exists, then He is eternal and brought everything out of nothing
      • 2. So, if God exists, then He must be all-powerful, all-knowing, self-sufficient, etc.
      • 3. Evil actions are the result of a deficiency of some kind (e.g., temptation, corruption)
      • 4. So, God doesn’t commit evil actions
    • O3: God is the arbiter of good and evil
      • 1. What is good/evil for a thing is determined by what the thing is
      • 2. God invents what everything is
      • 3. So, God determines what is good/evil for everything
      • 4. But, nothing does the same for God
      • 5. So, God cannot be said to be evil like this
      • R1: this means God can’t be said to be good either
        • O1: God can be said to be good in an analogical sense since He determines what is good

Euthyphro Dilemma 3: The False Dilemma Response

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this video, I explore the possibility that this is a false dilemma. There is a third option that avoids the repercussions of the first two and provides insight into the nature of morality.

NOTES

  • Third way
    • God chooses what is good/evil
    • But God does so according to His nature, which is eternal and never changes
  • S1: Avoids problems of Horn 1
    • God decides, so there is no threat to sovereignty, omniscience, or free will
    • Moral truth is built in to our natures
  • S2: Avoids problems of Horn 2
    • Not arbitrary since it is determined by God's unchanging nature
    • Not non-rational since it is chosen for a reason: according to His nature
  • O1: How can we call God good?
    • R1: analogically, since He determines goodness according to His nature

Euthyphro Dilemma 2: Does God pick what’s right or wrong arbitrarily?

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this second video, I explore the option that God determines what is good or evil: that there is no moral law until God chooses what will go into the moral law. This option seems open to the objections that (1) the moral law is arbitrarily chosen, (2) God has made a non-rational choice, and (3) it’s difficult to see how obligation attaches to these commands if there is no prior set of rules about what is right and wrong.

NOTES

  • Horn 2
    • God decides:
      • Saving an innocent person’s life is good
      • Torturing babies for fun is evil
    • And that’s what makes those things good/evil respectively
  • O1: Arbitrary
  • O2: Non-rational
  • O3: No obligation

Euthyphro Dilemma 1: Are moral truths independent of God?

by Leave a Comment

The Euthyphro Dilemma was posed in Plato’s “Euthyphro.” Adapted for our purposes, it asks what God’s role is in determining what is good and what is evil. Is it that God has no say in the matter but only reinforces what is already so, or is it that God determines what is good or evil? Either choice seems to bring undesirable consequences.

In this first video, I explore the possibility that what is good or evil is determined before God gets to choose. This option lends itself to four objections we will consider. It seems inconsistent with God’s (1) sovereignty, (2) omnipotence, and (3) free will, and (4) it posits a mysterious list of rules uncreated by God.

NOTES

  • Horn 1
    • Saving an innocent person’s life is good
    • Torturing babies for fun is evil
    • God knows these things
    • So, God tells us not to do those things
  • O1: Sovereignty
  • O2: Omnipotence
  • O3: Freedom of the will
  • O4: moral truths are mysterious

The Hindu ‘Maya’ Response to the Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

The problem of evil is this: How could God allow evil? Hinduism is a very diverse religion and this problem doesn't apply to many forms of it: only henotheistic versions where Brahman is infinite. Interestingly, in that case Hinduism has a unique tool for dealing with the problem of evil: the doctrine of maya. Everything, including evil, is an illusion, so there is no problem of evil! Is such a doctrine possible? Can all evil be an illusion?

NOTES

Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

   S1: omniscient & omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

   S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist

The Main Ideas

i. Assume Brahman is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent

ii. The world is an illusion

ii. So, evil is an illusion

Objections

O3: suffering is real even if the physical isn't

O4: evil isn't an illusion; separateness from Brahman is an illusion, and this is evil

Are groups real?

by Leave a Comment

Teamwork makes the dream work, but what makes the team? Is it just the players? Coaches? Owners? Is it the name or the logo? Any answer we give will have interesting consequences. Check out the video for more!

The Mormon Response to The Problem of Evil

by Leave a Comment

The problem of evil is this: How could God allow evil? Mormonism has a unique answer in that it rejects the idea that God has unlimited power, so that God couldn’t prevent evil—it wasn’t God’s fault! But, how can we say God has limited power? Are there some evils God could have prevented even with the limited power available? Check out the video to find out more!

Why I'm Still Using 'LDS' and 'Mormonism'

Sometime last year (2018), I read that the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, president Russell Nelson, claimed to receive a revelation from God (this is not an unusual claim for the leader of this religion, as he is always considered to be a ‘prophet, seer, revelator’). He said that God had impressed on his mind that people should use the full name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ to reference his religion, though it could be shortened to ‘The Church,’ ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ or ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ Further, it is no longer acceptable for anyone to use the traditional abbreviated terms ‘LDS’ or ‘Mormonism.’ He then asked everyone—not just members of his religion—to do the same. After thinking about it for a good amount of time, I decided I am going to continue to use the traditional shortened terms, and I would like to respectfully explain why.

There are two reasons I can see that I should stop using ‘Mormon’ and ‘LDS.’ First, President Nelson, and the adherents of his faith along with him, believe that God told him I should. I am not a Mormon, I don’t believe President Nelson is a prophet, and I don’t believe God wants me to stop using these terms—but they believe it. Obviously I am not under any religious obligation when I’m not part of the religion—in fact it’s odd for a religion to have rules for unbelievers to follow insofar as they are unbelievers—but does respect for the LDS faith compel me to acquiesce? I don’t think that it does. You can’t respect a faith if you don’t take it seriously enough to disagree openly with it. Pretending to go along with it is just pandering, and I don’t think anyone wants that. I don’t believe God said this, so respect for the LDS faith compels me to say so.

The second reason is a little more difficult: LDS members themselves, including President Nelson, wish to be called by these names. Generally, I want to make people happy. It usually costs very little effort for me to use a different name, so why not do so? I think the answer to that differs for the four names.

First, let’s consider “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” This is a perfectly acceptable name for the faith and I have no problem with it in principle, but it’s clearly a practical problem. That name is absurdly long for use in conversation. It’s a name for a letterhead, not for everyday speech. It’s just too impractical to use this name when speaking of the LDS church. Mercifully, President Nelson says that God allows us to shorten the name after the first use, but even the first use is a little ridiculous.

The name ‘The Church’ is obviously a huge improvement in brevity, but what it lacks in length it makes up for in confusion. ‘The Church,’ when used as a proper noun, has historically referred to all Christians. It is true that the founders of Mormonism claimed to be the only true Christians and that all existing Christian denominations were an abomination, but the current stance of the LDS is that they are just another denomination of Christianity. For that reason, I don’t think President Nelson means to claim that the LDS has the only true Christians when he says we should use this name, but then the name’s use is confusing.

The name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ is much worse in that sense. This sounds like a furtive claim to be the true church of Jesus. Again, that’s not the official stance of the LDS anymore, but this moniker makes it sound like we’re turning back the clock. It may not have been the intention of President Nelson to do so, but words are powerful and asking to be called by a name like this has psychological ramifications that are impossible to ignore. Imagine, for example, if Baptists asked everyone to call them ‘The Church of Jesus Christ.’ How bombastic does that sound? For that reason, I think this name is wholly unacceptable.

The last name is ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ The term ‘restored’ is meant to indicate that the Christian church almost immediately apostatized after the apostles died. We have no evidence that such a thing happened and very good evidence that the Christianity practiced for 2,000 years is relevantly the same as that practiced in the first few centuries. However, LDS theology holds that it isn’t. The official teaching is that we’ve spent the last 1,900 years practicing an abomination, and it was only with Joseph Smith that the church was “restored.” I am a Christian, so I obviously disagree, and calling the LDS ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is just a smack in the face for me. So, I can’t use this name.

I can definitely see why the name ‘Mormon’ is odd, but not why it’s bad. The cornerstone of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. It would sound weird for someone to call me a “Bible-ite,” but I can’t see why that would be bad. The name ‘LDS’ is just short for ‘Latter-Day Saints’ which is short for ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.’ That seems to me rather useful.

I’ll be honest—this post is not very well-written. These kinds of things are not really what I’m passionate about, so I really don’t want to spend too much time on them. However, it is important to me that any Mormons that have seen my videos or read anything I have written about their faith understand that I don’t use these terms flippantly. It’s just that the options President Nelson has provided are either impractical or theologically unacceptable and there was nothing wrong with the traditional terms. For that reason, I am going to keep using them.

NOTES

Logical Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, God could prevent evil

   S1: omniscient & omnipotent

2. If God exists, God would prevent evil

   S1: omnibenevolent

3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist

4. Evil exists

5. So, God doesn’t exist

Supporting Argument for (1)

assume: 6. God exists

7. God is all-knowing

8. Evil is something to know how to prevent

∴9. God knows how to prevent evil

10. God is all-powerful

11. Evil is something to have the power to prevent

∴12. God has the power to prevent evil

13. An agent can prevent something if she knows how to do so and has the power to do so

∴14. If God exists, God could prevent evil

The Main Ideas

i. God is an exalted man who is not omnipotent

ii. So, (10) is false

iii. But God is still powerful enough to prevent some evils that he doesn't

iv. So, this response isn't enough