Free Will Defence

God has given up control over human actions to bring about a greater good

MACKIE's version

  • 'first order goods' are happiness and pleasure
  • 'first order evils' are unhappiness, pain, misery

we can reduce their misery by being sympathetic, understanding, kind, compassionate, loving OR make it worse by being spiteful, mean, envious

  • 'second order goods' are sympathy, love, understanding, kindness, compassion
  • 'second order evils' are spite, meanness, envy, jealousy, greed

second order goods maximise first order good + minimise first order evil
second order evil maximise first order evil + minimise first order good

we have free choice to maximise/minimise first and second order good/evil

freedom is third order good; allows us to choose between instantiating first and second order evil to maximise first order evil + minimise first order good

thus, God is justified in allowing evil in universe since it permits freedom to choose/reject good. it teaches us to be morally responsible

MACKIE'S rejection

  1. it is logically possible for a person to make free, good choices all the time
  2. God could have created humans so they only make free good choices
  3. God did not

SO

  1. either God lacks power
  2. or God is not loving enough to do so
  3. either way, FWD fails
  4. thus, God doesn't exist

Strengths

  • Plantinga's account of FWD shows both his MSR1 and MSR2 are logically possible so Plantinga refutes Mackie
  • Mackie would be refuted by Plantinga since it would be logically impossible for God to have created a world (PW3) in which people had free will but never made morally bad choices. Even an omnipotent being could not do the logically impossible
  • natural evils bring about 2nd order moral goods (sympathy, love, compassion). Such goods are to be valued above simple happiness & pleasure
  • a world with free creatures is more valuable than a world without them. Freedom alone is the thing that makes any love or joy or goodness worth having
  • humans value the risk of pain. For some, where there is no risk there can be no enjoyment

Weaknesses

  • mackie; it is logically possible for a world of humans who have free will to always make good choices. So God could have created such a world. The fact that God did not do that suggests he is either not powerful enough/not loving enough to do it
  • Plantinga, even though his MSR1 and MSR2 show FWD is logically coherent, it does not show that it is true. His explanation of natural evil elevates a mythological story to the status of a philosophical argument, which it isn't
  • FWD relies on libertarian accounts of free will. Libertarian accounts of free will cannot be proved, however, it can only be assumed
  • FWD has no convincing response to evidential problem of evil. At the point of creation, God must have known the full extent of human evil, so why did he bother to create such a universe?

it is logically possible for a world of humans who have free will to always make good choices. God could have created such a world. The fact that God did not suggests he is either not powerful enough or not loving enough to do it

PLANTINGA's MSR1 + logical problem of evil

  1. Plantinga's MSR1 is that "God's Creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will"
  1. In MSR1, Plantinga presupposes the view of free will aka LIBERTARIANISM

  1. Plantinga claims libertarian free will is a 'morally significant' kind of free will.
  1. Plantinga's argument aims to show (against Mackie) that there is no logically possible world in which God could have created beings who would always make free, good choices

PW1:
a) God creates persons with morally significant free will
b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose right and avoid wrong
c) there is evil and suffering in PW1


PW2:
a) God does not create persons with morally significant free will
b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and avoid wrong
c) there is no evil or suffering in PW2


PW3
a) God creates persons with morally significant free will
b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and avoid wrong
c) there is no evil or suffering in PW3

PW1 is logically possible, PW2 is logically possible: there is nothing illogical about the idea of God creating people without morally significant free will who are programmed always to make good choices, with the result that there is no evil/suffering in PW2
PW3 according to Plantinga would be impossible

  • to have morally significant free will, people must be able to do morally bad things whenever they want to, but they can't because they are causally determined
  • if you wanted to lie, you couldn't because causal forces beyond your control (put in place by God), wouldn't let you. You would be incapable of stealing
  • since PW3 is a world without evil of any kind, people would not even be able to think bad thoughts/desires

in PW3 the 3 statements a, b, c are logically incompatible, so PW3 is logically incompatible, therefore God cannot create it

e.g. most mothers would allow the small pain (needle) to be inflicted on their children because that pain brings about a greater good (immunisation against disease)

libertarianism: casual determinism is false, we can make choices that are genuinely free. We have a degree of free will and so can be held morally responsible for our actions


this is a necessary (although unprovable) assumption otherwise a 'free will' defence does not have any foundation

a) people have the chance to put into practice Mackie's second order goods of sympathy, love etc...
b) this kind of freedom is the most important, because it means that people are morally responsible for their decisions. Moreover, they can be praised and rewarded if they do what is right, or blamed/punished if they do wrong

  1. Plantinga defeats Mackie's claim that FWD is logically inconsistent

PLANTINGA's MSR2 + problem of natural evil

  1. Plantinga's MSR2 is: "God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve's punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden."
  1. many philosophers believe MSR2 is ludicrous: it is unscientific and relies on the mythological narrative of Adam and Eve.
    BUT Plantinga doesn't have to give the true reason, he just has to give a logically possible one to refute Mackie
  1. however unlikely, it is logically possible that natural evil was created/allowed by God because of human sin in the Garden of Eden

therefore, Plantinga has successfully refuted Mackie's claim that FWD is incoherent

accounting for natural evil

  • gravity causes natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as accidents in everyday life (car accidents causing bodily damage)
  • if God were to intervene to stop all such accidents, it would become impossible to kill/injure someone. The result would be that we would inevitably realise that somebody or something was controlling the world. Hick argues if we knew God exists we could never be free, because we would always be conscious of the existence of a superior being, and we would always try to please that being
  • nature has to be free to follow the laws by which it works. When we see people suffering as a result of accidents and diseases that can happen to us, this gives us the opportunity to develop Mackie's 'second order goods' of compassion, feeling sympathy towards and empathy with their suffering