The Free Will Defense - Plantinga

A Response to McCloskey

              Is the existence of God tenable? Do the so-called arguments for the existence of God have any truth-value? Can an atheist live a more fulfilled and ultimately more comfortable life? H.J. McCloskey attempts to answer these questions and more in his treatise On Being an Atheist. McCloskey claims that atheism, not theism is a better explanation for the world we observe. In this paper I shall tackle some objections McCloskey makes about the “proofs” of God, namely the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments. I will then focus on answering his objections to a morally perfect God who would allow evil to exist in a world he created. Lastly I will look at McCloskey’s claim that life, as an atheist, is more comfortable than a life based on the belief in a supreme being.

            Within the first few paragraphs of his paper McCloskey consistently refers to the arguments for God’s existence as proofs. What does he mean by proofs? Is he placing an all to heavy burden on these arguments, burdens that need not be applied? McCloskey goes too far in suggesting that we need to prove the existence of God conclusively. What things are known with absolute certainty outside of particular branches of mathematics like geometry? What should be said rather is that upon examining and evaluating the arguments for God one could draw the conclusion from the premises in these arguments that they represent the most probable answer to the questions raised about design in the universe, the cause of the universe and the existence of moral values and duties. As theists, we are not trying to present any one argument as the sole case for God, rather we are attempting to build a coat of chain mail in which each link adds to the overall strength of the armor, or in this case sum total for the validity of belief in God. This is a cumulative approach to reasoning the existence of a necessary, all-powerful, immutable, immaterial, incorporeal being, and we call this being God. We need not prove God exists we merely need to give evidence that he is the best explanation for the universe and life we observe.

Short Essay on the Problem of Evil

Sin no mater the degree or function has been a concern of man since the dawn of time. Whether in the form of moral evil or its associate natural evil the basis for the problem of evil is realized.

The problem of evil is both a question of logical consistency in propositions of a theological system and more chiefly it’s a string of problems that encompass God and evil.[1] Biblically the book of Job details the problem of evil and other places in Scripture give account of evil by suffering in the face of doing good (1 Pet. 3:13-14). Plato took up this problem in his work Euthyphro, which outlines questions that relate to the cause of this problem. Plato however missed the mark here; the answer to his dilemma should be stated, God wills the good because He is good.[2] God as a holy can have no part in evil thus cannot be the cause of evil (Jas. 1:13).

Among the definitions of evil two classes exist, moral and natural evil. Moral evil is evil that is the product of moral agents; the first murder by Cain (Gen. 4:8), Uriah’s assassination by David (2 Sam. 11:14-17). Natural evil is that problem which arises as a result of natural processes such as earthquakes, or tsunami’s. Each problem must be addressed using different arguments and approaches. For example one cannot hope to answer the suffering of a cancer patient by appealing to free will.[3]

Tackling the issue of why sin exists is important in addressing the problem of evil. Prior to the fall in Genesis 3, the world was made whole and unblemished (Gen. 1:31). Adam and Eve existed in an unabated relationship with the creator of the universe. Subsequent to the fall both moral and natural evils became prevalent. God as the all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. According to Leibniz, out of the many possible worlds that were feasible for God to actualize he chose the one we experience to actualize which was the best possible world. In order for man not to be an automaton God had to endow his creation with free will. If he offers free will then he cannot limit the influence of evil in the world. This would be a direct inconsistency with free will. However, because of God’s providence he can use evil to ultimately bring about good in the world, namely the saving work of Christ at Calvary.[4] John Hick espoused that God’s intent was not to create perfect creatures rather he sought to create beings in need of development towards perfection. [5] However this view errs because the use of evil in the world seems to turn people away from God and not the opposite.

When developing a theodicy it is extremely important to ensure it is internally consistent. If God is all loving and omnipotent and evil exists the theodicist must show that there is no inconsistency with these claims. Is it inconsistent for God to allow evil? Certainly not, what would be inconsistent is for a God, who allows the free will decisions of moral agents, to restrict the decisions of free creatures to ensure no evil can arise. This as stated previously would be inconsistent with the idea of free will making the theodicy internally inconsistent. In my view, God actualized the best possible world. Since God is the only Metaphysically necessary being he alone can will the world into existence.[6] Though evil exists it does not raise an issue of inconsistency in this theodicy because it can be shown that people (agents who propagate evil by free will decisions) are certainly less perfect than a necessary being because their existence is contingent on that being. Thus evil is consistent with God creating man.

Personal experience can both lend to and hinder one’s relationship with God. When a person experiences evil in their life they make ask the question, “why me God?” This can cause a rift in the relationship the person assumed they had with God. However if the person would spend time in the Scriptures stories would inspire the downtrodden. Joseph described evil used for good by God (Gen. 50:20). David found refuge in God during trials (Ps. 18:6). A person seeking to dispute a belief about God can only do so if the theodicy accurately portrays God.[7] Because theodicies are constructs of human thought it is possible to deny a theodicy without actually denying an attribute or the existence of God.

Though the problem of evil will certainly not go away anytime soon the theodicist can be confident that if their view is consistent it can be used to explain one’s view of God. This may offer hope for others aspiring to defend God in a logically consistent way.

Word count: #799

Bibliography

Feinberg, J. S., “Evil, Problem of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 413-15. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Feinberg, J. S., “Theodicy.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 1184-87. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

Lewis, G. R., “God, Attributes of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 492-99. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001

---

[1]             J.S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 413.

[2]             G.R. Lewis, “God, Attributes of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 496.

[3]             Feinberg, 414.

[4]             J.S. Feinberg, “Theodicy.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1186.

[5]             Feinberg, 1186.

[6]             Feinberg, 1185.

[7]             Ibid, 1187.

Thursday Theology: Middle Knowledge

In the 16th century a Catholic theologian named Luis de Molina maintained that God's hypothetical knowledge of what would be was logically prior to His divine creative decree. This basically meant that though God has knowledge of any and all true propositions, he also has knowledge of counterfactual truths.

What is a counterfactual?

Counterfactuals are conditional statements in the subjunctive mood.[i] For example: "If I had a million dollars, I would purchase a red yacht."[ii] We use these types of sentences all the time, “If I pulled out into traffic right now, I would get into an accident.”[iii] They are crucial for our daily-decision making process.

God also utilizes counterfactuals in reference to His creation. He has knowledge of what would be given any situation in any feasible world. So if this knowledge is logically (not chronologically) prior to the divine creative decree, this means God knows what would have happened if Peter choose to affirm Christ three times instead of denying Him three times. He also knows a feasible world in which it wasn’t Peter who denied Christ but it was actually John who freely denied Christ. But because this comes logically prior to the creative decree God chose a world in which Christ would be freely denied by Peter three times.

What implication does this lead to?

This affirms free will. God looking at all the feasible worlds so chose a world in which Pilate, if placed as the prefecture of Palestine in AD 30, would freely choose to have Christ crucified. God does not tinker with free will here. He simply chose a world to create that given the players in the game, they would freely choose to bring about a certain reality. Other views on divine providence strip free will from creatures (Theological Determinism, Open-Theism) and can even result in making God the author of sin. If God so determined to make things happen then He can be attributed to making Judas sin by betraying the Son of God and thus God was the cause of Judas’ trip to eternal damnation. But how can God be the author of sin?

There are certainly more things to be said of Middle Knowledge but I wanted to keep this short. I will close with another quote from William Lane Craig on Middle Knowledge,

“Via His middle knowledge, then, God can have complete knowledge of both conditional future contingents and absolute future contingents. Such knowledge gives Him sweeping sovereignty over the affairs of men. And yet, such an account of God’s knowledge is wholly compatible with human freedom, since the circumstances envisioned in counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are non-determining, and, hence, freedom-preserving.”[iv]

---

[i] William Lane Craig, What Does God Know?: Reconciling Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Norcross, GA.: RZIM, 2002), 41.

[ii] This can be true or false, but clearly in the actual world I do not have a million dollars and thus I do not own a red yacht. This is why the antecedent “if…” and/or the consequent “then…” can be contrary to fact, however, sometimes the antecedent and/or the consequent is true. This is an example of a counterfactual statement.

[iii] ibid

[iv] William Lane Craig, What Does God Know?: Reconciling Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Norcross, GA.: RZIM, 2002), 57.