Freedom of the Will in Light of the Problem of Evil
Ok, since it appears that we are lacking in sufficient posts to consider ourselves a blog (i.e. nobody is blogging), I have decided to publish a thought which I've been inspired to mull over the past few days. Consider:
I am pretty sure that most people are aware of the problem of evil with its many different arguments and subarguments. One such argument concerning the problem of evil is the argument something to the effect:
1. If God is all good then he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all powerful then he could destroy evil.
3. Evil has not been destroyed.
4. Therefore, this God doesn't exist.
There have been numerous responses to this argument. To be sure, some have denied that God is all good. Others have denied that God is all powerful. Still some have affirmed the existence of an all good and all powerful God while denying the existence of evil. Most Christians, however, affirm the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God and still maintain that evil exists. Traditionally there have been two counterarguments to this argument.
The first argument, let's call it (1), says that evil cannot be destroyed without destroying free will. And since free will is a necessary condition for love, and since love is the greatest good, then it follows that to destroy free will is to destroy the greatest good.
The second argument, let's call it (2), says that the original argument places an unnecssary time constraint on God. That is to say, just because evil has not been destroyed it doesn't follow that evil will not one day be destroyed. And indeed if God is all powerful then it follows that he can destroy evil, and if God is all good then it follows that he will destroy evil. Most Christians believe that this will happen on the final judgment day.
Now, for the sake of the argument lets suppose that all of us affirm both of these counterarguments. Let's say that we believe both of these counterarguments are valid arguments...
Question: Does it follow that when God destroys evil, let's say on the day of judgment, our free will will also be destroyed as well?
Let me clarify; if, as argument (1) shows, to destroy evil is to destroy free will then does it follow that when God destroys evil, as argument (2) assumes, God will destroy our free will as well?
If this is the case then does it follow that on the final judgment day God will not only destroy evil, but he will also destroy the greatest good; namely, love?
I am pretty sure that most people are aware of the problem of evil with its many different arguments and subarguments. One such argument concerning the problem of evil is the argument something to the effect:
1. If God is all good then he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all powerful then he could destroy evil.
3. Evil has not been destroyed.
4. Therefore, this God doesn't exist.
There have been numerous responses to this argument. To be sure, some have denied that God is all good. Others have denied that God is all powerful. Still some have affirmed the existence of an all good and all powerful God while denying the existence of evil. Most Christians, however, affirm the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God and still maintain that evil exists. Traditionally there have been two counterarguments to this argument.
The first argument, let's call it (1), says that evil cannot be destroyed without destroying free will. And since free will is a necessary condition for love, and since love is the greatest good, then it follows that to destroy free will is to destroy the greatest good.
The second argument, let's call it (2), says that the original argument places an unnecssary time constraint on God. That is to say, just because evil has not been destroyed it doesn't follow that evil will not one day be destroyed. And indeed if God is all powerful then it follows that he can destroy evil, and if God is all good then it follows that he will destroy evil. Most Christians believe that this will happen on the final judgment day.
Now, for the sake of the argument lets suppose that all of us affirm both of these counterarguments. Let's say that we believe both of these counterarguments are valid arguments...
Question: Does it follow that when God destroys evil, let's say on the day of judgment, our free will will also be destroyed as well?
Let me clarify; if, as argument (1) shows, to destroy evil is to destroy free will then does it follow that when God destroys evil, as argument (2) assumes, God will destroy our free will as well?
If this is the case then does it follow that on the final judgment day God will not only destroy evil, but he will also destroy the greatest good; namely, love?
posted by Anonymous | 4:46 PM
8 Comments:
Aaron,
I have often wondered the exact same thing many times in the past.
If we do have genuine free will after the judgement, is it still possible to fall into sin again?
The most common answer I have heard is that in our glorified state we will be able not to sin. Perhaps similar to the way that Jesus, though he was tempted, was able not to sin. But I don't know of any particular passages to support this.
Here's an idea:
Let us for a moment assume that Aristotle got it right, and that people are motivated by seeking the greatest good. In our current fallen state, even those of us who are being sanctified daily (and thus know that the greatest good is found in being perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect) are prone to wander; we are led astray at times. This is because, although Satan is a defeated foe, he is still trying to fight this losing battle; and he's not going to go to hell quietly. Evil is still in the world.
Now, perhaps when God finally destroys evil (and this obviously includes the lies and deceit of Satan which tell us that the greatest good can be found in rebellion against God), we will finally be free to see clearly and act motivated solely by the Truth. Therefore, we will not sin, for we will be able to ever and always discern the greatest good (perfection) without the hindrance of deceit.
This could probably be said better, but let me know if anyone thinks this has value.
Satain once rebelled while in heaven with God. So it seems that sin is at least possible in heaven.
Perhaps we will be the kinds of people for whom sin, though possible, is not likely. The following is one analogy:
Noone has a sign in there house stating that pouring used motor oil on the living room rug is forbidden. The type of people I associate with (or used to associate with) make it painfully unlikely that anyone will ever do it. Perhaps sin in heaven is this way. As free beings we will be able but not likely to sin given the kind of people we have been made into.
There is my tip, though I hardly think it is a fair 20%.
Interesting point.
Would you say then, that since it was possible (though not likely) for Satan to sin, and he did indeed sin; that therefore since it will be possible for us to sin (though not likely given the kind of people we have been made into), we can concieve of an instance where sin might take place in heaven again?
Otherwise, it sounds like we are basically saying the same thing; the only difference being that I stipulated the means (perfect knowledge) that will make us into the kind of people we will be, while your idea allows for other means.
What do you think?
I will concede your stipulation albeit if I can stipulate a concession ergo an ad hoc agreement has been forged post quam.
I get the strange feeling I'm being made fun of...
To Anonymous (with a Texas accent),
Actually, pouring used motor oil on the living room carpet can prove quite useful done properly. Although I do not have a sign posted forbidding this practice, I do have a sign that says it is not recommended for the average Joe or Texan.
Also, is "motor" the correct term? By definition, we would be more accurate to say engine oil. A motor is a machine that is powered, while an engine is a machine that produces power.
Although small Hondas or Toyotas may seem as though they have motors, they do in fact have engines.
anonymous 2:
I resent the obviously racist remark regarding Japenese automobiles.
I have a Toyota with a 4.7 litre V8, and I used to own a small Ford with a 1.8 litre four-banger.
Post a Comment
<< Home