The problem of evil & the issue of free will

Question 1

What was Plantingas approach to solving the problem of evil

Answer 1

He developed Augustine’s theodicy into a ‘free will defence’ of God’s possible co-existence with evil.

Without free will, our lives would be pointless and valueless.

Question 2

What did Plantinga beleive the abuse of free-will would lead to

Answer 2

It’s abuse can directly lead to moral evil and indirectly lead to natural evil in the form of punishment, the work of demons, and having to live in a fallen world due to Adam’s misuse of free will.

Question 3

What do most P.O.E theodicies attempt to link?

Answer 3

The power of theodicies then typically functions through attempting to link the existence of evil to free will.

Question 4

What do most theodicies argue about removing evil.

Answer 4

They can then argue that removing evil is not logically possible without impacting our freewill in some way which would either leave us even worse off or is simply logically impossible for God to do.

God’s omnipotence is typically thought by Christian theologians to involve the power to do any logically possible action. God cannot do logically impossible things.

Question 5

What do various theodicies claim to be logically impossible for God to eliminate evil without:

Answer 5

1. Contradicting his divine justice, since we deserve evil as punishment for our freely chosen evil actions (Augustine).

2. Removing our free will, since all evil results either directly (moral evil) or indirectly (natural evil) from the abuse of free will (Augustine & Plantinga).

3. Removing opportunities for growth from evil through freely choosing good over evil (Irenaeus & Hick).

Question 6

What is a weakness of this argument?

Answer 6

the challenge that libertarian free will does not exist

Question 7

Define libertarian free will?

Answer 7

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

Question 8

Why is this a weakness?

libertarian free will

Answer 8

Theodicies rely on the existence of ‘libertarian free will’, meaning the ability to do otherwise.

However, libertarian free will seems to require an undetermined event which is nonetheless somehow also under the control of an agent. This strikes many philosophers as incoherent.

Question 9

What does A.j. Ayer argue about free-will

Answer 9

A. J. Ayer argues that our choices are either determined or not. If not, they are random. If determined, they result from prior causes such as our character, which is itself determined by prior causes. In either case, we couldn’t have done otherwise.

Question 10

What does Mackie argue about free will

Answer 10

Mackie develops this style of argument. Our actions are either the result of randomness, external causes, or our own character.

It is those choices which originate from our character that we typically call moral. This must be the notion of freedom theodicies draw on.

Question 11

What does mackie conclude about the coherent definition of free-will

Answer 11

However, we did not create our own character. They may be times a person made efforts to change their character.

But those efforts were themselves determined by prior states of their character. Mackie concludes that the only coherent definition of free will is a compatibilist one, where “free choice” is when our actions are determined by our character.

Question 12

What does this conclusion allow Mackie to argue

Answer 12

This allows Mackie to then argue that if there were a perfect God, he would have made sure to have given us all a morally good character.

Question 13

Applying this to theodicies, this means:

Answer 13

• Adam and Eve would have never disobeyed God. Augustine & Plantinga therefore lose their explanation of natural evil.
• All humans would behave morally now, so Augustine & Plantinga lose their explanation of moral evil.
• Hick also loses his explanation of why God couldn’t have created us fully or at least better-formed than he did.

Question 14

What does this argument attack

Answer 14

This argument attacks the logical coherence of libertarian free will and thus defends the logical problem of evil.

Question 15

What is the first morally sufficient reason Plantinga responded with

Answer 15

that it is actually not logically possible for God to create a world where free agents always make good choices.

The possibility of a world of free creatures only choosing good depends on their free choices, which God cannot control without taking away their free will.

Question 16

In support of Plantingas theodicy, what did Kant argue

Answer 16

Kant argued that human beings are ultimately non-physical souls which exist outside of the realm of cause and effect, so we can have free will despite the physical world being predetermined.

It is logically possible that we have souls, so the logical problem of evil is defeated.

Question 17

Evaluation critiquing theodicy

Answer 17

• Plantinga tries to respond that God couldn’t have created us in a way where we would only do good actions, since then we wouldn’t have made a choice.
• However, this response fails to consider Mackie’s argument for compatibilism. The notion of libertarian free will which Plantinga presupposes is logically incoherent.

Even if our character comes from our soul in some way, we did not create it. Whatever we are, we did not make ourselves.

So, God could have given us all a good character. This would have prevented Adam and Eve from causing the fall. It would make soul-making unnecessary because we would be born with already good characters.