24.00: Problems of Philosophy Prof. Sally Haslanger September 19. 2001 Evil and the free will defense Review of the problem 1)If God exists, she'd be OOG. [By hypothesis 2)If an OoG being exists, there would be no evil. [from 1] 3)God exists. [Suppose] 4)There is no evil. [ From 1-3 5)There is evil. [Premise from experience. I 6)Therefore, [An OOG] God does not exist. Because our supposition (3)leads to a contradiction(4-5 ), we should reject the supposition. I The free will Defense Evil is due not to God but to human free will. Suppose we do have free will. Why did God grant us free will if so much misery results? Answer: It is better on the whole that people should act freely even granted the disastrous use we sometimes make of our freedom. Free will is a higher good that more than makes up for whatever trouble it causes i) Lots of evils arent related to free will at all: earthquakes, floods, etc. Why do these exist if God is good?(Punishment? Instruction? But what about the death of innocents? ii)Why couldnt God have given us such excellent characters that we would freely choose good in every case? Perhaps, we would always have the option of doing evil, but we would al ways prefer the other option. As Mackie puts it God was not faced with the choice of making either automata or free agents who sometimes go wrong. She could also have made free agents that al ways go right! iii) Free will seems incompatible with Godis omnipotence. The reason is that when God gives me free will, she commits herself to letting my actions depend on my decisions rather than hers. So, if I decide to steal a car, or burn a flag, because of her commitment God cannot stop me! And if God cannot stop me then that would seem to imply a limitation on her powers. Van Inwagen's Theodicy A"theodicy"is justification of theism in the face of evil. It is an attempt, in particular, to explain how Gods omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness is compatible with the existence of evil. Note that given Mackie's charge that theists are committed to a contradiction, what van Inwagen needs to show to counter Mackie's argument is just that there is a possible scenario on which God is OOG, and there is evil. Van Inwagen is not compelled to show that this possible scenario is in fact true Begin with(ii). Van Inwagen seems to assume that An omnipotent being cannot insure that a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y (108)24.00: Problems of Philosophy Prof. Sally Haslanger September 19, 2001 Evil and the Free Will Defense Review of the Problem 1) If God exists, she'd be OOG. [By hypothesis] 2) If an OOG being exists, there would be no evil. [from 1] 3) God exists. [Suppose] 4) There is no evil. [From 1-3] 5) There is evil. [Premise from experience.] 6) Therefore, [An OOG] God does not exist. [Because our supposition (3) leads to a contradiction (4-5), we should reject the supposition.] The Free Will Defense Evil is due not to God but to human free will. Suppose we do have free will. Why did God grant us free will if so much misery results? Answer: It is better on the whole that people should act freely even granted the disastrous use we sometimes make of our freedom. Free will is a higher good that more than makes up for whatever trouble it causes. Objections: i) Lots of evils arenít related to free will at all: earthquakes, floods, etc. Why do these exist if God is good? (Punishment? Instruction? But what about the death of innocents? ii) Why couldnít God have given us such excellent characters that we would freely choose good in every case? Perhaps, we would always have the option of doing evil, but we would always prefer the other option. As Mackie puts it: God was not faced with the choice of making either automata or free agents who sometimes go wrong. She could also have made free agents that always go right! iii) Free will seems incompatible with Godís omnipotence. The reason is that when God gives me free will, she commits herself to letting my actions depend on my decisions rather than hers. So, if I decide to steal a car, or burn a flag, because of her commitment God cannot stop me!!!! And if God cannot stop me, then that would seem to imply a limitation on her powers. Van Inwagen's Theodicy A "theodicy" is justification of theism in the face of evil. It is an attempt, in particular, to explain how God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness is compatible with the existence of evil. Note that given Mackie's charge that theists are committed to a contradiction, what van Inwagen needs to show to counter Mackie's argument is just that there is a possible scenario on which God is OOG, and there is evil. Van Inwagen is not compelled to show that this possible scenario is in fact true. Begin with (ii). Van Inwagen seems to assume that: An omnipotent being cannot insure that a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y. (108)