fayfreethinkers.com

Hello all,

In another forum, I'm participating in a thread titled, "Why Doesn't Jesus Just Zap All the Evil Doers?"

One fellow proposed the "solution" that God allows free will.

I presented the following counter, which I think plays both on the problem of evil and also on the argument from nonbelief (although this one doesn't aim to disprove God's existence). The idea is that because God allows us to choose incorrectly, it must be more important to God that we choose than it is that we be correct. However, according to teachings, God punishes us based on whether we are correct rather than whether we chose for ourselves.

Please note that the argument is not intended to disprove the existence of God, or to disprove free will, only to reveal the incoherency in the way God allegedly deals with choice. (Also, I'm sure this argument already exists in some form somewhere, but it stewed in my head for a long, long time before I had the real opportunity to present it.)


Proposed solution: God allows us to choose the incorrect action or belief.

If a God who could make us be correct instead allows us to choose incorrectly, our choosing must be more important to God than our being correct.

If the more important criterion is that you choose, God should penalize based on that criterion and not on what you choose. Instead, according to teachings, God penalizes based on what you choose. Therefore the more important criterion is not that you choose. (Modus tollens.)


This reductio was intended to either (a) reject the proposed solution, or (b) reveal that God punishes unfairly.

There has been wild and seemingly belligerent flailing from the religionists on this one, so much so that I can't help but wonder if I'm missing some important point that the fundies can't quite articulate. Can I get a review from our resident experts (especially world-famous philosopher Doug) so I can know whether I've fried my circuits from all the roasting, or if the religionists are just logically illiterate? (I won't rule out the possibility of both being true...)

DOUG
The Bible is all over the place on free will, although free will is never mentioned explicitly. In one place God even hates one brother and loves the other while they are still in the womb. It even states that he hated one and loved the other even before they had the chance to do good or evil. This suggests predestination.

Romans 9:
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

DOUG
So this says that God "hardens the heart" of some people and thus creates a bad person in order to display his power when he strikes them down. Is this unjust? According to the Bible it is not unjust because God can do whatever he wants and it's OK.

Apart from that, you raise some good points about the free will issue in connection with the problem of evil. You wrote:

If a God who could make us be correct instead allows us to choose incorrectly, our choosing must be more important to God than our being correct.

The Free Will Defense is sometimes seen as a subset of the Greater Goods Defense to the problem of evil. The Greater Goods Defense is that God allows evil to exist in some cases in which the existence of that evil would bring about a greater good that could not be brought about without that evil. For example, the virtue of charity could not be brought about without the existence of needy people. Courage could not be brought about without some element of danger, and so on. The idea behind all of this is that the goodness of the Greater Good outweighs the evil that brings it about, thus justifying its existence.

In this case, the goodness of our having free will outweighs the suffering brought about by free actions such as murder, rape, theft, etc. God doesn't want us to do those things, but, on this view, it is more important for us to have free will than to avoid those things. If we did only good but were not choosing good freely, we would not be able to claim "credit" for doing good because we could not do otherwise. (More about this below.)

You write:

If the more important criterion is that you choose, God should penalize based on that criterion and not on what you choose. Instead, according to teachings, God penalizes based on what you choose. Therefore the more important criterion is not that you choose. (Modus tollens.)[/color]


This reductio was intended to either (a) reject the proposed solution, or (b) reveal that God punishes unfairly.

DOUG
As the previous Bible verses suggest, it seems quite clear that God punishes unfairly, since God determines who is or is not going to be "hard hearted" and then punishes those who are. But you are quite right to point out that those who want to bring in the free will issue often try to have it both ways, that God both wants us to choose freely more than he wants us to choose correctly, and that we must choose correctly.

As I point out in my book, one might wonder whether, if free will is such a great good, God also has free will. How could God have free will? Doesn't that suggest that he might choose to do evil? For many theologians that is impossible. God's good nature does not allow God to ever do evil. But if God CANNOT choose evil, why should we think God is good for not doing evil if he can't do evil because he can't choose it? Isn't that exactly what God allegedly wanted to avoid in US by making sure we had the ability to choose?

Of course, you're dealing with the Judeo-Christian (also Muslim) god and book here. Other folks' belief systems don't necessarily have the problem of mutually exclusive stances to be accepted on faith. As far as I can tell, the JCM god doesn't really care about freewill OR goodness - he wants obedience.

Agree with Barbara. JCM god is authoritarian and belief, obedience, and total submission appear to be the primary agenda. Free will immediately creates a conflict with a definition of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence.

Thanks for your extensive feedback, Doug.

Doug wrote:The Bible is all over the place on free will, although free will is never mentioned explicitly.

Fine, but remember that the free will argument is the one that my "opponent" presented. I'm assuming the validity of the claim this guy makes in order to present a proof by contradiction. I can make him choose between rejecting free will and rejecting a just God simply by allowing him to argue for free will, so why argue with him over free will to begin with?

Doug wrote:The Free Will Defense is sometimes seen as a subset of the Greater Goods Defense to the problem of evil. The Greater Goods Defense is that God allows evil to exist in some cases in which the existence of that evil would bring about a greater good that could not be brought about without that evil.

This is all well and good, but this was not the guy's claim. He has made no mention of "greater good" or "evil that is necessary for the existence of good."
Plus, as you point out, then the "incorrect choice" would still be "good," so why should anyone be punished for promoting "good"?

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Of course, you're dealing with the Judeo-Christian (also Muslim) god and book here. Other folks' belief systems don't necessarily have the problem of mutually exclusive stances to be accepted on faith. As far as I can tell, the JCM god doesn't really care about freewill OR goodness - he wants obedience.

Let me point out to Barbara and Glen that the aim of this argument is mainly to counter the specific claim being made, which is about the Christian God. The argument would only apply to a god to which the individual premises apply. (In fact, my main "opponent" has now shied away from this, saying that his current view (which is rather amalgamated and morphing due to "searching") is uncertain whether God really punishes as most religionists believe.)

Umpty years back Samuel Delany wrote a book called Babel-17 (sci-fi), in which a computer language imposed on an amnesiac human being was "shorted out" (releasing control of the human back to his human language) by feeding it sets of mutually exclusive statements. They had to strap the guy down to do it, since the controlling language also included self-defensive capability. That's what you are doing to these poor fundies - and unless you have some way of tying them down, they will either run or fight as the conundrums increasingly threaten them.

Why argue about what a "God" can do or what it grants to humans if the person positing its existence can not give a coherent, non-contradictory definition or description of what the term "God" means? These people trap you into automatically accepting their bogus terminology to argue their nonsense. I worked in a mental hospital for over fourteen years, and refuse to take people who talk that way seriously.

Doug wrote:The Bible is all over the place on free will, although free will is never mentioned explicitly.

Savonarola wrote:Fine, but remember that the free will argument is the one that my "opponent" presented. I'm assuming the validity of the claim this guy makes in order to present a proof by contradiction. I can make him choose between rejecting free will and rejecting a just God simply by allowing him to argue for free will, so why argue with him over free will to begin with?

DOUG
Well, for one thing you can show that he can't get the defense off the ground, so to speak. If the Bible shows that we don't have free will, he can mount no free will defense.

Doug wrote:The Free Will Defense is sometimes seen as a subset of the Greater Goods Defense to the problem of evil. The Greater Goods Defense is that God allows evil to exist in some cases in which the existence of that evil would bring about a greater good that could not be brought about without that evil.

Savonarola wrote:This is all well and good, but this was not the guy's claim. He has made no mention of "greater good" or "evil that is necessary for the existence of good."

DOUG
Then you can rightly ask why God would create beings that have free will and the capactity to do evil when he could have created beings with no free will and no capacity to do evil. If doing evil is bad, God could have created beings that don't do that. After being so challenged, your opponent WILL give you a greater goods argument.

Savonarola wrote:Plus, as you point out, then the "incorrect choice" would still be "good," so why should anyone be punished for promoting "good"?

DOUG
Well, the fundie would probably say that the capacity for choice, not the choices, is good. You can still make the wrong choice. What counts is both that you can choose and what you choose.

Except that the Bible also says that good works do not matter at all. Isaiah 64:5-6:

...How then can we be saved? 6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Press your opponent on why we have free will as opposed to not having it, and he will give you a greater goods argument.

You have lost the argument once you accept the person's assertion that there is a "God." If there is no "God," then there is no "free will." This is why we were taught at the mental hospital not to argue with delusional or demented people.
One of the nurses pointed out to me, the Naomi Feil method of dealing with this type of person.
Demented Patient: "My son is coming this afternoon and we are going to that new restaurant out on the edge of town."
Traditional Response: "No, no, Marge, you son died five years ago in a car accident, remember?"
Feil Method: "How nice! Now tell me what you are going to order? Is that the new Chinese restaurant? Tell me more."
Feil Method: "Free will! How wonderful! Tell me what that will allow me to do without penalties." Etc., etc.

Suppose the person had claimed: "The Easter Bunny allows free will. Therefore, this explains x, y or z." Atheists should refuse to be suckered into these debates where they are asked to unconsciously accept the theists false assumption of an illogical, irrational definition of a god. The theist accepts a personal and irrational concept of a god and refuses to acknowledge the atheist position that the concept is cognitively empty. If you worked with delusional and demented people long enough you would not step into their trap. In effect, they are luring you into a trap of trying to reason with a person who rejects reason. Naomi Feil asks you to accept their delusional or irrational state of mind as a fact, but not their reasoning, nor should you think you can change them to use reason.

Excellent point, Glen, and well explained. Thanks.

Fall is here and Moses is back (every afternoon this week so far) by the Fulbright Peace Fountain sounding seriously like a lunatic (and sometimes like a dangerous lunatic) with his "ususal" - Yesterday he actually told someone that he (Moses) has the right to judge the passerby and said passerby didn't have the right to judge him, because the passerby was "in a state of sin" and Moses wasn't (I thought about yelling that we were in the state of Arkansas, but I restrained myself). Mostly I just shoot him the protection from the "evil eye" sign and walk on. He hasn't "tweeted" at me, so I doubt he's noticed.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Fall is here and Moses is back (every afternoon this week so far) by the Fulbright Peace Fountain sounding seriously like a lunatic (and sometimes like a dangerous lunatic) with his "ususal"...

DOUG
Moses is definitely mentall ill. I think he's mentioned having a wife, but I can't imagine that guy getting along with anyone for any length of time. He's like Fred Phelps--a one-note song with nothing new to say after the first 60 seconds. And nothing interesting at all.

Moses is a great walking, talking billboard to show students the perils of excessive religiosity. I always thought it would be fun when Brother Jed Smock or people like Moses appear, to come in with a sign that says "This is your brain on fundamentalism." If you know anyone who speaks Hebrew, you might have them go out and talk to Moses, since obviously being Hebrew he will undoubtedly be fluent in that language. Funny thing though, in all of my conversations with Jesus, he never would take up the challenge to say something in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Moses said they "were in a state of sin?" I lived in the state of WisconSIN for over 55 years. Am I in industrial strength trouble? By the way, what exactly is a "sin?"

Doug wrote:

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Fall is here and Moses is back (every afternoon this week so far) by the Fulbright Peace Fountain sounding seriously like a lunatic (and sometimes like a dangerous lunatic) with his "ususal"...

DOUG
Moses is definitely mentall ill. I think he's mentioned having a wife, but I can't imagine that guy getting along with anyone for any length of time. He's like Fred Phelps--a one-note song with nothing new to say after the first 60 seconds. And nothing interesting at all.

I'm glad he comes up on campus. I think he probably turns more people away from Christianity than anyone in the area.

Returning to the issue of “free will,” if you are still engaged with these people, another strategy you can use is to use their assertion of free will to show that this contradicts their definition or description of their “God.” First, ask them if their “God” is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. They almost always will assure you that this is the case. I dueled with intelligent designers in the local press in Missouri. Several of them tried the “free will” strategy on me. Keep in mind that I was restricted to 250 words in a letter to the editor.
To the Editor, [Columbia Daily] Tribune:
Open Column letters by Sharon Crowley and Derek Duncan allege that the Christian God gave people free will so they can choose to believe and obey him.
However, free will contradicts the allegation that this god is omnipotent or omniscient. Designing the universe implies omniscience; creating it implies omnipotence. It is illogical to claim that a god knows and created everything but does not know what happened after his creation.
It is erroneous to claim that nonbelievers can choose to believe in an omniscient God. God would have foreknowledge of and created the circumstances of every person’s life. He would know what future choices a person would make and which people would become nonbelievers.
Nonbelievers would have no choice because God made the outcome of nonbelief inevitable by the circumstances of their lives by not providing the alleged necessary knowledge and understanding. If God is omniscient, people cannot have free will.
Claiming that people can choose to act counter to the circumstances God has created in their lives contradicts God’s omnipotence. If people have free will, then God is not omnipotent.
Claiming God is merciful and loves mankind but allows the innocent nonbelievers he created to go to hell contradicts God’s omni-benevolence.
Think about what designing and creating the universe requires in a designer and creator. Think about the implications of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence as attributes or characteristics.
The creator’s subsequent conduct and actions must be consistent with these attributes, or it is imaginary or nonexistent. END
I am sure Doug can add comments, refinements or details and point out any errors that I may have made.
The basic thing to remember is:
1. Whenever they introduce terms like “God,” “sin,” “free will,” “faith,” etc., make them define the terms in relation to the natural world and check if the terms are consistent with their other definitions, OR
2. as in science, ask them for an operational definition of how the term can be produced, observed, or inferred from sensory input, OR
3. accept the term or proposition, and show how it ultimately leads to a contradiction.
Take for example, the term “design” from intelligent design. (We won’t even bother with the vague term “intelligent.”) What to hell does design mean? Design is a word that humans have created to interpret sensory input. Humans construct words, concepts, models, formulas, theories, etc. in order to deal with what we perceive as the “world out there.” However, we are that “world out there” to others. Objects do not have any inherent design, any more than they have inherent color. Design borders and colors are meaningless words at the atomic level. The words, etc. are not identical to anything “out there.” This is a semantic error. Semanticists use the phrase “the map is not the territory.”
If instead you skip the definition and accept their proposition and logic, then, if there is an intelligent designer, then there is an intelligent colorer, intelligent numberer, intelligent weigher, etc. This leads to polytheism.
Good scientific minds understand when they are manipulating symbols that are meaningful. Theists are great for creating symbols (words, concepts) that are meaningless. I recently gave Doug a used copy of Paul Tillich’s book The Dynamics of Faith. The first sentence goes something like this: “Faith is defined as ultimate concern.” What to hell does “ultimate concern” mean? OH! I get it! Ultimate concern is defined as “faith.” Now that you understand, lets debate! I asset that faith is blue, and ultimate concern weighs more than a ton.
If you insist that theists clarify what they mean by their terms, you won’t have to debate many of them because you will realize they don’t know what they are talking about. Your “ultimate concern” will be to avoid them and their semantic traps. Their goal is to lure people into these linguistic and semantic snares, which like the Zen koans, break down reasoning, so they can get you to accept the illogic of their religion.
Finally, remind them if this “God” was intelligent and serious about wanting humans to believe and obey, then providing them with “free beer” would have been much more effective than “free will.”

Savonarola wrote:If a God who could make us be correct instead allows us to choose incorrectly, our choosing must be more important to God than our being correct.

If the more important criterion is that you choose, God should penalize based on that criterion and not on what you choose. Instead, according to teachings, God penalizes based on what you choose. Therefore the more important criterion is not that you choose. (Modus tollens.)[/color]


This reductio was intended to either (a) reject the proposed solution, or (b) reveal that God punishes unfairly.

DOUG
It IS more important to God, on the Christian free will scheme (for those that accept free will) THAT we have the ability to choose than that we choose correctly, but it doesn't follow that God can't justly punish us on the basis of what we choose.

Consider a baseball game. You don't get points just for going to bat, but you can't earn points unless your team goes to bat. But going to bat is not a sufficient condition to get points. It is only a necessary condition. AFTER you go to bat, you MAY get points.

Similarly, choosing is a necessary condition for getting merit for doing good acts or punishment for bad ones, but it is not a sufficient condition for either punishment or reward.

If you got points in baseball for just going to bat, regardless of whether you got a hit, someone might say you had not earned the points. If you got punishment or reward for just choosing, someone might say you had not earned the reward or deserved the punishment.

Doug wrote:It IS more important to God, on the Christian free will scheme (for those that accept free will) THAT we have the ability to choose than that we choose correctly, but it doesn't follow that God can't justly punish us on the basis of what we choose. [snip elaboration]

Thanks Doug, this is the review I was looking for.

Additionally, some excellent points were made by all. Thanks for the feedback.