The inadequacy of free-will theodicies

[Ripheus27]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free-will theodicies are those derived from the idea that God must allow moral evil as a potential effect of free will. Secondly, if God disallowed moral evil, then somehow free will would not exist (keep in mind that the model of volition in play, here, is the libertarian--metaphysical, not political--kind).

But why couldn't God make us able to

(A) choose between what is neutral, what is neutral but "different," what is obligated, and what is supererogatory,
​

or,

(B) choose between what is neutral, what is obligated, and what is supererogatory?
​

I'm a Christian, but with Gnostic tendencies, so I believe that one of the Persons of the Trinity is a sinner, and His sin was precisely that He created humanity as capable of sin when He plainly might have made us impeccable. However, this is a rather private opinion of mine; otherwise, it seems clear to me that God, defined as a morally perfect person, does not exist, because if He did exist and was perfect, He never would have needed to create humanity as capable of sinning.

 

[Elioenai26]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free-will theodicies are those derived from the idea that God must allow moral evil as a potential effect of free will. Secondly, if God disallowed moral evil, then somehow free will would not exist

This is essentially correct.

I'm a Christian, but with Gnostic tendencies, so I believe that one of the Persons of the Trinity is a sinner, and His sin was precisely that He created humanity as capable of sin when He plainly might have made us impeccable.

You are a Christian, and yet believe that One person of the Trinity is a sinner....

*crickets chirping in the silence*
....
..



This explains a lot of your unusual posts.....

However, this is a rather private opinion of mine;

Not anymore....

otherwise, it seems clear to me that God, defined as a morally perfect person, does not exist, because if He did exist and was perfect, He never would have needed to create humanity as capable of sinning.

No one has ever said that God needed to create humanity at all. So that is your first assumption that needs to be done away with.

A false assumption is evident in your argument in general and in fact you are shouldering a burden of proof you simply cannot bear. In order for your argument to go through, you would have to prove that God could not have a morally sufficient reason to create moral free agents.

But how would you be able to do that? You would have to know all possible states of affairs. And of course, you do not know all possible states of affairs. So...... maybe you would like to think a little harder about this.

 

[Ripheus27]

No one has ever said that God needed to create humanity at all. So that is your first assumption that needs to be done away with.

What I meant was, "□(If humanity exists, it is peccable)," is false. That is, humans could have

(a) been created with free will (defined as "the ability to do otherwise") and
(b) been created incapable of sin.
​

 

[brightlights]

At the end of the day, the only sin is unbelief. God created man to trust Him. Righteousness is trusting God. Man fell when he lost his trust in God.

 

[Ripheus27]

At the end of the day, the only sin is unbelief.

This is only true on a theological voluntarist conception of morality. If morality is defined as, "Imperatives that have absolute priority over all others," then an atheist code of morality is possible so long as an atheist can explain an imperative as holding over against all others (and, regardless of my own Christian faith, I know that atheists are entirely capable of prioritizing moral imperatives over amoral/immoral ones--my own decision to forsake all evil taking place when I was sure that God did not exist).

 

[brightlights]

This is only true on a theological voluntarist conception of morality. If morality is defined as, "Imperatives that have absolute priority over all others," then an atheist code of morality is possible so long as an atheist can explain an imperative as holding over against all others (and, regardless of my own Christian faith, I know that atheists are entirely capable of prioritizing moral imperatives over amoral/immoral ones--my own decision to forsake all evil taking place when I was sure that God did not exist).

Atheists are totally capable of being moral. Yet the Bible claims that God thinks that faith is righteous and he thinks that unbelief is wicked. Beyond this, morality is not impressive to him.

 

[Ripheus27]

Atheists are totally capable of being moral. Yet the Bible claims that God thinks that faith is righteous and he thinks that unbelief is wicked. Beyond this, morality is not impressive to him.

Since I don't think the Bible is perfect, I don't care so much what the Bible says God's attitude towards morality is. In fact, if God didn't absolutely conform to the laws of right and wrong, I woudn't respect Him so much as I do. However, when He Incarnated, He proved willing to disavow all corrupt mortal standards, such as value-by-monetary-superiority, value-by-military-superiority, etc., wherefore Christ entirely proved that even human pure reason testifies against human impure reason.

EDIT: To the extent that faith reflects honest appreciation of what God has done to reveal Himself, I am a man of faith. But if God is willing to torture even a single person because that person lacks sufficient evidence for God's existence as Christ, well, I would prefer to be burned infinitely than love such an entity...

 

[Juelrei]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free-will theodicies are those derived from the idea that God must allow moral evil as a potential effect of free will. Secondly, if God disallowed moral evil, then somehow free will would not exist (keep in mind that the model of volition in play, here, is the libertarian--metaphysical, not political--kind).

And you therefore wouldn't be able to find fault with God because you'd have no free will to do so. Count your blessings.

But why couldn't God make us able to
(A) choose between what is neutral, what is neutral but "different," what is obligated, and what is supererogatory,

or,(B) choose between what is neutral, what is obligated, and what is supererogatory?

There is no neutral. There's free will or no free will. Count your blessings.

I'm a Christian, but with Gnostic tendencies

Translation: you come up with your own damnable stuff and thus think yourself more righteous than God.

so I believe that one of the Persons of the Trinity is a sinner

That is spiritually impossible but for the sake of argument, okay. Shoot your own foot, I don't care.

and His sin was precisely that He created humanity as capable of sin when He plainly might have made us impeccable.

You don't give any details of what your version of impeccable would be. And you don't know what God's version of impeccable is. Or rather, you find fault with it. Even though he gave it to you when you became a Christian. Talk about the dog biting the hand that feeds it.

However, this is a rather private opinion of mine; otherwise, it seems clear to me that God, defined as a morally perfect person, does not exist, because if He did exist and was perfect, He never would have needed to create humanity as capable of sinning.

You have no idea what perfect means. God made humans without sin in the beginning yet capable of sin. Being capable of sin also means being capable of refraining from sin. Which is a more perfect state of humanity than being pre-programmed incapable of making a decision or choice at all.

Making humans capable of refraining from sin makes God more righteous than you think he is. You better hope he is righteous, because without it, you are not a Christian at all. Still in your sins and will inevitably end up in hell. Nobody wants that.

So count your blessings of God's mercy and grace upon you inspite of your erroneous flawed understanding of God.

 

[elopez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free-will theodicies are those derived from the idea that God must allow moral evil as a potential effect of free will.

A theodicy is a justification for a good God in a sinful world. What you're referring to is a free will defense, which is the attempt to logically support God's existence in relation to sin and evil. More specifically, what you're referring to is Alvin Plantinga's free will defense, which again, differs from a normal theodicy. Keep in mind this is just but one free will defense in the light of more. While I'd agree with the general concept, the idea of free will Plantinga advocates is indeed a libertarian idea, which I find to be false.

Secondly, if God disallowed moral evil, then somehow free will would not exist (keep in mind that the model of volition in play, here, is the libertarian--metaphysical, not political--kind).

Yes, free will would not exist if there was no potential for evil. Though libertarian free will I think is false for a few reasons. One concisely is that under an omniscient God that has foreknowledge of all human/natural affairs, causal and logical determinism are both true, which render libertarianism false.

But why couldn't God make us able to

(A) choose between what is neutral, what is neutral but "different," what is obligated, and what is supererogatory,​

Perhaps man is capable of neutrality. Adam and Eve would at some point have had been just sitting there not doing much of anything, which I would see as sort of neutral.

What exactly is neutral but different? That is unclear to me. And God did make us able to choose between what is obligated. He prohibited eating the fruit, gave us the ten commandments. We can choose not to follow what is obligated, too. I would also have to ask what you consider a "supererogatory" act would constitute as?

or,

(B) choose between what is neutral, what is obligated, and what is supererogatory?​

Again, perhaps we did do neutral things like just sitting around. We can do or not do obligated things. I still don't know what we would consider supererogatory acts.
​

I'm a Christian, but with Gnostic tendencies, so I believe that one of the Persons of the Trinity is a sinner, and His sin was precisely that He created humanity as capable of sin when He plainly might have made us impeccable. However, this is a rather private opinion of mine; otherwise, it seems clear to me that God, defined as a morally perfect person, does not exist, because if He did exist and was perfect, He never would have needed to create humanity as capable of sinning.

To this I would have to say one thing: What God creates is not of God Himself, but from God. That is, creation cannot be God, especially by way of being "created." What has the same nature of God is God, and as the Son has that same nature He is God. The only thing impeccable is the Son incarnated, since it is technically uncreated as it is God. Logically then the creation cannot be the same. To expect creation to be anything but is simply unreasonable.

Also, if one person of the Trinity sinned, that would disrupt the same nature that is suppose to be inherit in all three and that which would make the other two persons not sin. So, it would not be a Trinity at that point as the one who sinned would have a different nature than the other two. At that point there is either no Trinity, or you're wrong as none would have sinned.

 

[Gadarene]

Theodicy in general is inadequate, but with regard to these ones -

Surely if one can compose a scenario where free-will is maintained but evil isn't produced then that would overturn this particular theodicy?

Christians assert that free-will is compatible with omniscience, so God could simply create those who would freely choose not to commit evil. If you grant the initial assertion, there is no reason whatsoever as to why God should create people knowing they will foul up.

 

[Gottservant]

God makes men free, by making women freer.

 

[Gadarene]

Atheists are totally capable of being moral. Yet the Bible claims that God thinks that faith is righteous and he thinks that unbelief is wicked. Beyond this, morality is not impressive to him.

So he's rightly unimpressive to a lot of people then.

 

[Ripheus27]

Perhaps man is capable of neutrality. Adam and Eve would at some point have had been just sitting there not doing much of anything, which I would see as sort of neutral.

... What exactly is neutral but different? That is unclear to me. And God did make us able to choose between what is obligated. He prohibited eating the fruit, gave us the ten commandments. We can choose not to follow what is obligated, too. I would also have to ask what you consider a "supererogatory" act would constitute as?

I realize I shouldn't have said "obligated" the way I did. But what I meant was to refer to the following range of deontic categories:

Immoral/forbidden --- indifferently neutral --- differently neutral --- right/dutiful --- beyond the call of duty
​

What is the difference between a "differently neutral" and an "indifferent" such act? I'm following the following:

Consider:

1) It is optional that you attend the meeting, but not a matter of indifference that you do so.
​

This seems to describe something quite familiar: optional matters that are nonetheless not matters of indifference. But when deontic logicians and ethicists gave an operator label for the condition (~OBp & ~OB~p), it was almost invariably “It is indifferent that p”, “INp”. But then it would seem to follow from the theorem OBp ∨ (~OBp & ~OB~p) ∨ IMp, that (~OBp & ~IMp) → INp, that is, everything that is neither obligatory nor prohibited is a matter of indifference. But many actions, including some heroic actions, are neither obligatory nor prohibited, yet they are hardly matters of indifference. We might put this by saying that SDL can represent optionality, but not indifference, despite the fact that the latter concept has been a purported target for representation since nearly its beginning. ("Deontic Logic," Paul McNamara, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I still don't know what we would consider supererogatory acts.

I don't have any examples at the moment; I'm just working from formal logic.

The only thing impeccable is the Son incarnated, since it is technically uncreated as it is God. Logically then the creation cannot be the same. To expect creation to be anything but is simply unreasonable.

What I was trying to suggest was that God could have created us with the ability to make choices, but choices only between the four deontic categories after the first one in the above list. Thus free will and impeccability would have been given to us simultaneously. I don't think that being able to sin is part of what it means to be created, but then I also know that such a position has a decent argument (from Kantian theory) in its favor.

Also, if one person of the Trinity sinned, that would disrupt the same nature that is suppose to be inherit in all three and that which would make the other two persons not sin. So, it would not be a Trinity at that point as the one who sinned would have a different nature than the other two. At that point there is either no Trinity, or you're wrong as none would have sinned.

This might depend on what the metaphysical effects of sin are. If it is a corruption of a nature in a certain way, then yes, for one divine Person to sin would be for the others to be infected, as it were, by the power of sin as well. If sin doesn't corrupt a sinner's nature like that, though... It's like how patripassionism is false (i.e. it's false that the Father was crucified), perhaps.

 

[Ripheus27]

Christians assert that free-will is compatible with omniscience, so God could simply create those who would freely choose not to commit evil. If you grant the initial assertion, there is no reason whatsoever as to why God should create people knowing they will foul up.

I've ever had problems with attributing foreknowledge of such a nature to God, but if I didn't, then I suppose I could argue in this way. Or I could say that God is evil for having knowingly created people who He knew would do evil...

 

[Gadarene]

I've ever had problems with attributing foreknowledge of such a nature to God

Sure. I know not everyone does, but the assertion I've come across seems predominant. Omitted an instance of "some"/"most", clearly.

I don't know if I really buy the assertion - or if it's true, it makes little practical difference to the omniscience/free will dilemma because God would still have to make a choice to create us, and our known choices would be a component of that.

 

[Ripheus27]

There is no neutral. There's free will or no free will. Count your blessings.

I didn't mean "neutral" as a space between the existence and nonexistence of free will, but as a category in deontic logic.

Translation: you come up with your own damnable stuff and thus think yourself more righteous than God.

I don't think I'm more righteous than God. Only one of the divine Persons is evil (as far as I know). Now yes, I would say that that Person, as the ultimate source of all evil, is perhaps worse than any finite sinner, but Christ and the Holy Spirit are better Persons than I am.

You don't give any details of what your version of impeccable would be. And you don't know what God's version of impeccable is. Or rather, you find fault with it. Even though he gave it to you when you became a Christian. Talk about the dog biting the hand that feeds it.

Impeccability means inability to sin. That's all it means. And I didn't become a good person when I became a Christian; I had foresworn sin over a decade earlier, when I was still an atheist. So God didn't redeem me, as far as I know.

You have no idea what perfect means. God made humans without sin in the beginning yet capable of sin. Being capable of sin also means being capable of refraining from sin. Which is a more perfect state of humanity than being pre-programmed incapable of making a decision or choice at all.

Why not give us just the choice between doing nothing at all, and only doing good (either good that is our strict duty, or good that is beyond the call of duty)? Then we'd have a choice between three options (what is merely permitted, what is obligated, and what is supererogatory). We'd have free will and yet be incapable of sin.

 

[FatalHeart]

Exactly. God created Satan knowing He would find wickedness in Satan, knowing Satan would rebel, knowing what would happen. Simply it being God's knowledge and foreknown plan for the universe is not enough to say He is the cause of it. He allowed it to happen, and it wouldn't have happened if He allowed it, but if someone is going to kill someone and you give them a gun and you don't tell anyone about it, we incriminate the person, but we don't blame them for the murder. The fact is, what Satan was was known to God. Satan would always be Satan, created or not. Just as a poem I write will always be what it is, dark, depressing, even if I choose to delete it or show no one. These dark forms that God created to be were always dark concepts that existed, though not given power to be. God, choosing to allow flesh and power to the story He has created where not everything is good and not everything is okay is certainly not a story I would have written, but perhaps it should be told. After all, wicked people deserve death. Evil deserves what it gets. The righteous deserve the glory of who they are in the face of suffering. The only real question here is not, why are these things unfair but, why choose to be unfair in light of these things? Why ever choose darkness if this is what darkness is, and if you choose darkness, why complain what you get from it? (Not that anyone is complaining. Just saying. Arguing against evil and its consequences while still choosing evil yourself is hypocritical.)

 

[Gadarene]

Exactly. God created Satan knowing He would find wickedness in Satan, knowing Satan would rebel, knowing what would happen. Simply it being God's knowledge and foreknown plan for the universe is not enough to say He is the cause of it. He allowed it to happen, and it wouldn't have happened if He allowed it, but if someone is going to kill someone and you give them a gun and you don't tell anyone about it, we incriminate the person, but we don't blame them for the murder.

This excuse is always selectively applied.

If one wants to be pedantic, God technically isn't the direct cause of many events attributed to him on earth - people are. When it's something positive, most Christians are fine and happy to attribute causation to God. When it's something negative however, most Christians go into full on inconsistency mode.

The fact is, what Satan was was known to God. Satan would always be Satan, created or not. Just as a poem I write will always be what it is, dark, depressing, even if I choose to delete it or show no one. These dark forms that God created to be were always dark concepts that existed, though not given power to be. God, choosing to allow flesh and power to the story He has created where not everything is good and not everything is okay is certainly not a story I would have written, but perhaps it should be told. After all, wicked people deserve death. Evil deserves what it gets. The righteous deserve the glory of who they are in the face of suffering. The only real question here is not, why are these things unfair but, why choose to be unfair in light of these things? Why ever choose darkness if this is what darkness is, and if you choose darkness, why complain what you get from it? (Not that anyone is complaining. Just saying. Arguing against evil and its consequences while still choosing evil yourself is hypocritical.)

Who is choosing evil?

The objection is called the "problem" of evil, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[FatalHeart]

It's not a problem though. It's just a bad experience we all go through on our way to glory. Is it sad? Yes. Is it bad? Yes. But problems are things that are not solved and God clearly promises that for those in heaven, "There will be no more pain."

 

[FatalHeart]

And if God rewards each person according to what they have done, it must have some sort of personal responsibility when you do good.