Plantinga's Free Will Defense Spelled Out
The ongoing saga of a meager menagerie of modest-minded, make-believe mavins pondering problematic propositions. We are wrestling with Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defense" (FWD), which is a possible solution to the logical problem of evil.
Well, Charlie. I hope you're proud of yourself. You've made a mess. Why can't you just repent and believe like the rest of us?
Seriously, I think we might be making progress here. I can see the solution -- all we need is a set of 30-weight ball bearings and some gauze pads. It's all ball bearings nowadays. Come on guys! It's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course.
No, seriously, let's lay down a few parameters that I think will be helpful.
(1) If we debate the coherence of Plantinga's FWD, let's stick to picking on him, and not our own versions. So, distinctions not found in Plantinga (P), such as PFW and GWF, or the pass/flunk test, need to be set aside. These are false dichotomies that are not helpful. If they are truly representative of P, then this needs to be shown. Here is a nice summary of P.'s FWD.
(2) Similarly, I think it's important to recognize that Plantinga's FWD is not a defense of theism in general, but rather of Christian Theism. It assumes the Christian version of God, man, sin, etc. So, when we say "sin," we can all agree what we mean. There are other definitions of "sin," to be sure, but we are not refering to those. The charge is with the coherence of Christian Theism in particular. I'm open to broadening the debate if you would like, however.
That being said, let's return to the argument. The captain has now turned on the fasten seat-belts sign. All seatbacks and tray tables should be in their upright and locked position. Prepare for take-off.
Here is the basic line of the FWD:
(I'm changing the numbers for simplicity.)
In the logical problem of evil, atheologians claim that the following two propositions are logically inconsistent:
(1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
(2) Evil exists.
Plantinga says that in order to show that (1) and (2) are consistent, all we need to do is find a third proposition that is consistent with (1), and together with (1) will entail (2). Here's a candidate:
(3) God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.
P. distinguishes between a theodicy and a defense. A theodicy (justification of God) wants to show that (3) is true. A defense only wants to show that (3) is possibly true. That is the goal of the Free Will Defense. It only needs to show possibility in order to show that (1) and (2) are logically consistent.
P states, "the heart of the FWD is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also containted moral evil." (Alvin Plantinga, "The Free Will Defense," Philosophy of Religion, An Anthology, Louis Pojman, ed. Wadsworth, 1994). So P. is claiming that the following is possible:
(4) God is omnipotent, and it was not within His power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil.
All this amounts to is that there could be many people who would sin at least once, no matter how God stacks the deck, since He cannot control their free choices. Thus, there might be no possible world in which people are significantly free, and there is no evil. The fact that this might be true, or is possibly true, is enough to defeat the logical problem of evil. Now, the probabalistic/evidential problem of evil is another story. You can see a version of it here.
OK -- now we are clear on what is being debated. That should help. You can now move freely about the cabin.
Well, Charlie. I hope you're proud of yourself. You've made a mess. Why can't you just repent and believe like the rest of us?
Seriously, I think we might be making progress here. I can see the solution -- all we need is a set of 30-weight ball bearings and some gauze pads. It's all ball bearings nowadays. Come on guys! It's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course.
No, seriously, let's lay down a few parameters that I think will be helpful.
(1) If we debate the coherence of Plantinga's FWD, let's stick to picking on him, and not our own versions. So, distinctions not found in Plantinga (P), such as PFW and GWF, or the pass/flunk test, need to be set aside. These are false dichotomies that are not helpful. If they are truly representative of P, then this needs to be shown. Here is a nice summary of P.'s FWD.
(2) Similarly, I think it's important to recognize that Plantinga's FWD is not a defense of theism in general, but rather of Christian Theism. It assumes the Christian version of God, man, sin, etc. So, when we say "sin," we can all agree what we mean. There are other definitions of "sin," to be sure, but we are not refering to those. The charge is with the coherence of Christian Theism in particular. I'm open to broadening the debate if you would like, however.
That being said, let's return to the argument. The captain has now turned on the fasten seat-belts sign. All seatbacks and tray tables should be in their upright and locked position. Prepare for take-off.
Here is the basic line of the FWD:
(I'm changing the numbers for simplicity.)
In the logical problem of evil, atheologians claim that the following two propositions are logically inconsistent:
(1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
(2) Evil exists.
Plantinga says that in order to show that (1) and (2) are consistent, all we need to do is find a third proposition that is consistent with (1), and together with (1) will entail (2). Here's a candidate:
(3) God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.
P. distinguishes between a theodicy and a defense. A theodicy (justification of God) wants to show that (3) is true. A defense only wants to show that (3) is possibly true. That is the goal of the Free Will Defense. It only needs to show possibility in order to show that (1) and (2) are logically consistent.
P states, "the heart of the FWD is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also containted moral evil." (Alvin Plantinga, "The Free Will Defense," Philosophy of Religion, An Anthology, Louis Pojman, ed. Wadsworth, 1994). So P. is claiming that the following is possible:
(4) God is omnipotent, and it was not within His power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil.
All this amounts to is that there could be many people who would sin at least once, no matter how God stacks the deck, since He cannot control their free choices. Thus, there might be no possible world in which people are significantly free, and there is no evil. The fact that this might be true, or is possibly true, is enough to defeat the logical problem of evil. Now, the probabalistic/evidential problem of evil is another story. You can see a version of it here.
OK -- now we are clear on what is being debated. That should help. You can now move freely about the cabin.
posted by Chris at 11:47 AM
2 Comments:
Charlie,
I'm not attempting to change the argument -- I'm trying to get back to it. Do we want to start with Plantinga's FWD? (You said in your 11/21 post, "I offer to discuss a Plantingoid free will defense (FWD).") If not, we need to come up with another one that is clearly laid out.
I understand that it is frustrating when someone doesn't appear to address your arguments. By summarizing Plantinga, I was trying to re-establish our playing field. If we're starting with P., then attacking ideas not found in P. is irrelevant.
Also, if you like, we can even go back to your blog. I didn't intend to hijack the exchange. Some replies are just too long and should be posts.
Let me say a word about your apparent disdain for P. and other Christians who are attempting to argue logically. Think of it this way -- what is the main beef that scientists have with intelligent design? It's not good science, evidenced by the fact that they haven't published much at all in the academic journals. The journals are the proper place for legitimate scientific discourse. Well, Plantinga and other Christian philosophers have done just that. Not only are they amazingly prolific, but Plantinga is considered to be one of the greatest living philosophers, and that's not just according to Christians. His work in metaphysics and philosophy of religion is standard reading for any philosophy student. I suppose you could dismiss the entire field of philosophy as mumbo-jumbo, but I don't think you want to do that. Let's just give respect where respect is due. I have tremendous respect for atheist philosophers like Hume, Mackie, Rowe, et al. I disagree with them, but I don't think they're stupid, and I certainly don't think I have even a fraction of their brillance.
I’m glad to see this discussion come back to an exchange rather than each individual arguing for his side and not addressing the others’ questions.
It seems that everyone agrees with Chris’ definition of our discussion from his last post, but it appears that we all have differing opinions of the specifics in Plantinga's FWD. So, I’d like to see this discussion progress this way (as I believe it has since Chris’ last post):
We all accept:
(1) The Christian God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good.
(2) Evil exists.
Christians argue that there is a third proposition (3), that together with (1), produces (2).
wiploc has taken upon himself to logically prove that there is no such (3), thus there can logically be no Christian God. Since the Christian God has not yet posted on this blog to conclusively state His attributes, we are left with using our perceptions of the attributes of the Christian God (See Note 1). wiploc nicely and logically proved that there can be no God in which one of His attributes is omni-benevolence, which he defined as putting everyone’s happiness above all other things. I’m sure this perception of God is one many Christians hold, but that does not make it necessary that God actually has the attribute of omni-benevolence as defined by wiploc. Since this perception of God was disproved does not mean that the Christian God does not exist. I am free to bring a second perception of the Christian God to the table. If this perception is proved to not exist through logic, I am free to bring a third perception to the table. However, if the second perception (or the third, fifth, eighteenth, etc.) proves the possibility of a logical proposition (3), that along with (1), produces (2) we will have found that (1) and (2) can logically coexist.
Since I’m the one writing this comment, I would suggest my perception of the Christian God to be this second perception we bring to the table. I believe that God has the power (omni-potent) to create man and then give man commands on what man should do. Sin would then be defined as man going against those commands. When asked, Jesus stated that the most important command was to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength. He said the second most important command was to love our neighbor as ourself. So, sin would be man not loving God with all his heart, mind, and strength, or not loving his neighbor as himself. (This is in contrast to the definition of sin that wiploc proposed.)
wiploc and I agree that evil is caused by sin. If sin is anything a man does that makes another unhappy (wiploc’s def), then evil is unhappiness (or any causes of unhappiness). If sin is not loving God with all you are, and not loving your neighbor as yourself (as I suggest), then evil is the result of any action or state of heart that goes against these commands. (See Note 2) I still agree that evil exists, but my definition of evil is completely different from wiploc’s.
So, here are some definitions and the attributes of the Christian God that I would submit:
(A) God has the power to define what He wants His creation to do. (love God with everything, love neighbor as self)
(B) Sin is any action or state of heart that goes against what God commanded of creation in (A).
(C) Evil is the result of sin.
(D) God being wholly good means that He has our best interests in heart. (See Note 3)
Also, take into account that God must have had a purpose in creating man. So, let’s consider
(E) God’s purpose in creating man was to have a creation that loved Him out of free-will. This, I argue, is not possible without testing. (See my comment introducing the Band of Meaningful Temptation to see my reasoning on this.)
So, the proposition (3) that I would submit is:
(3) In making the commandments (love God with everything, love neighbor as self) meaningful, it must be tested. Man does not have the ability to pass every test that tempts man to go against the commandments. This results in evil. (Again, my Band of Meaningful Temptation comment goes into this explanation further.)
Note 1: Consider this analogy: wiploc surely perceives a set of attributes that I have. Chris surely perceives a set of attributes that I have. My roommate and my dad each have a set of attributes that they perceive of me. However, these four sets of attributes may or may not line up with the set of attributes that I actually have. For example, wiploc, Chris, my roommate, and my dad may all think of me as a very ungenerous person. However, it would still be possible for me to be a generous person (I give when nobody is looking) and thus all four of their perceptions be inaccurate.
Note 2: I know that this “state of heart” thing gets really messy. But I never claimed that Christian theology came in nice concise packages. That would be limiting God to the constraints of my mind, which is, by the way, pretty limiting.
Note 3: Consider this analogy: A parent puts the best interest of his child above the happiness of his child. For instance, if a toddler found an open bottle of bleach, a good parent would take the bleach away from the toddler (at the expense of the child’s unhappiness) because it was in the best interest of the child (child would not be poisoned).
Post a Comment
<< Home