Program / Course 15: The Problem of Evil and Suffering / Lesson 2.4
What you will learn
- State the heaven objection and the main replies to it.
- Explain how determinism and compatibilism bear on the defense.
- Describe the objection from horrendous evils and the question of proportion.
- Weigh the free-will defense fairly, saying what it achieves and what it leaves unresolved.
The big idea
The free-will defense faces serious objections. If the saints in heaven are free yet never sin, then God could have made free beings who always choose well, and the earthly price of freedom looks unnecessary. If human actions are determined by prior causes, freedom cannot be the explanation. And even if freedom is a great good, critics ask whether it justifies the extent of horrific suffering, in which the innocent are destroyed. Defenders have replies to each, but none is simple or universally accepted.
Key terms
- Heaven objection
- The argument that if the blessed in heaven are free and cannot sin, then God could have made all free creatures that way from the start.
- Determinism
- The view that every event, including human choices, is fully caused by prior events and the laws of nature.
- Compatibilism
- The view that acting freely is consistent with being determined, provided one acts from one’s own desires and reasons.
- Horrendous evil
- Evil so severe that it gives the person who suffers or does it reason to doubt that their life can still be worth living, a term of Marilyn McCord Adams.
- Beatific vision
- The direct sight or knowledge of God that Catholic and Orthodox teaching promises the blessed in heaven.
- Impeccability
- The state of being unable to sin. Christians say that God is impeccable and many say the blessed will be.
- Proportionality
- The question whether a good outweighs the harm it makes possible, in kind and in amount.
Background
In the last lesson Plantinga’s defense was shown to be consistent. That does not make it unanswerable. Several of its assumptions have been challenged, some by atheists and some by Christians. This lesson sets out three of the strongest objections and the best replies. As in all the lessons of this course, the aim is to present each side as its holders would, and not to declare a winner.
A reader should keep two questions apart. The first is whether the defense succeeds against the logical problem. The second is whether freedom is a good reason for the actual amount of evil in the world. Most of the objections below bear on the second question, and some on both.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The heaven objection
Christians hold that in heaven the blessed will be free and will not sin. Revelation 21:4 promises that there will be no more death, sorrow or crying. If this is possible, the critic says, then it is possible for free creatures never to sin. Why did God not create them in that state from the beginning, and spare the world its wickedness?
Defenders give several answers. One is that the blessed are formed by their earthly lives, so that their love of God is settled by choices made in time. On this view heaven completes freedom, and does not replace it. Another, from Aquinas and Eastern writers, is that the blessed see God directly and so cannot turn from him, since to see the supreme good is to love it. Such freedom is perfect, not absent. A third answer is that the path through temptation is the only way to a certain kind of character. The critic replies that this makes the evil of earth a mere means, and asks whether God lacked another way. This is the point at which the defense passes into the soul-making theodicy of Module 3.
Step 2: The determinism objection
The defense assumes that free acts are not determined by anything outside the agent. If human acts are determined by genes, upbringing and the laws of nature, then they are not free in that sense, and the defense fails. Some philosophers and scientists hold that determinism is true. Others hold that the physical world is not wholly deterministic, but that indeterminism alone does not make for freedom.
Christians divide. Some, such as many Arminians and Catholics in the Molinist tradition, hold that real freedom requires the power to do otherwise. Others, in the Reformed tradition, teach that God ordains all events and that human acts are free in the compatibilist sense. Jonathan Edwards defended this view in the eighteenth century. Compatibilists must ask how God can be good if he determines even sinful acts. They answer that God ordains but does not author sin, and that sin is permitted for his purposes. The critic finds this harder to square with God’s goodness than the libertarian view. The defender replies that Scripture teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and that the two together are a mystery.
Step 3: Is freedom worth this much?
The third objection concerns the amount and kind of evil. Even if freedom is a great good, do the crimes of history justify it? A world with some wickedness might be a fair price for liberty. A world with the abuse of children, genocide and torture seems to some far too high a price. The critic asks whether a parent who gave a teenager a car knowing that the teenager would kill others would be excused by respect for the teenager’s freedom.
Defenders reply that a loving parent does limit freedom in certain ways, and that God also acts to restrain evil, through conscience, law and grace. But they must admit that God does not stop every atrocity. Some say the value of freedom is so great that it requires a real chance of real harm. Others say the price cannot be calculated. The honest result is a disagreement about the weight of the goods, not about logic.
Step 4: Horrendous evils
Marilyn McCord Adams, a Christian philosopher and Episcopal priest, argued that most replies to evil fail to address horrendous evils: the evils that give a person reason to doubt their own life has meaning. Her examples include rape, torture and the starvation of children. Such evils, she said, cannot be balanced by goods enjoyed by others, and a reply must show how God defeats the evil within the life of the sufferer.
Her own answer is that God, in the end, integrates even these evils into the sufferer’s life through a union with himself, as in the identification of Christ’s suffering with that of humankind. Others find this too hopeful. Her challenge still matters. A reply that speaks only of the value of freedom in general may not touch the victim, who did not give up anything for it. Many Christian writers now insist that the problem is not solved until the victims themselves are considered.
Step 5: Weighing the defense
A fair summary is this. The free-will defense is widely regarded as showing that moral evil is not logically incompatible with God. It gives a real explanation of why God might permit some moral evil. It leaves open natural evil, the extent of evil, and the experience of victims. It depends on a view of freedom that some Christians reject. A careful student can accept it as one part of an answer without treating it as the whole.
- Why does the existence of free saints in heaven seem to threaten the defense?
- How could the blessed be both free and unable to sin? Which of the answers do you find most persuasive?
- Does compatibilism help or harm a Christian answer to evil?
- Is there a point at which the amount of evil would outweigh the value of freedom? How would you decide?
- What does Adams mean by saying that a reply must reach the victim?
- Which objection in this lesson do you think the defense answers least well?
Examples
The unlocked door
A man leaves his house unlocked, knowing that a burglar who is free to choose will come in. The critic asks how respect for the burglar’s freedom can justify it. The defender replies that God is not a householder with limited power, and that the analogy misses the good of freedom. The example shows how each side compares God to an ordinary agent and where the comparison strains.
Heaven as completed freedom
A pianist who has practiced for years can play a piece she once found impossible. She is not less free but more free, since she is no longer held back by lack of skill. Defenders use this kind of image to suggest that the blessed are made free by being formed. Critics ask why such formation required so much pain.
Adams’s question
A woman survives years of abuse as a child. Can her life be a good one all things considered? Adams argues that a Christian reply must address that question for her, in her life, and not only speak of the value of free choice in general.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that the blessed in heaven see God and cannot sin, and that this is perfect freedom. Aquinas argued that a will that sees the supreme good cannot choose against it. On determinism, the Church teaches that human beings have real free will and that grace does not destroy it.
Orthodox
Orthodox theology teaches that union with God, theosis, does not destroy freedom but fulfills it, and that the saints grow in love without end. Some Orthodox writers, such as David Bentley Hart, have argued that no explanation of evil by freedom can be accepted if it does not include the final salvation of all, a view disputed by others.
Protestant
Reformed Protestants reply that compatibilist freedom is enough for moral responsibility and that the defense is not needed in Plantinga’s form. Arminians hold to libertarian freedom and are the closest allies of the defense. Many evangelical writers add that the final answer lies in the cross and the resurrection.
Philosophical critics
Critics such as Mackie and Rowe argue that the heaven objection shows that God could have created a world with freedom and less evil. Some argue that freedom is not so valuable as to outweigh the suffering of the innocent. Others hold that the problem of natural evil makes the defense incomplete.
Why it matters
Testing a favorite argument against its best objections is part of honest thinking, and the objections here are not trivial. They also show why Christian thinkers go beyond the free-will defense to other resources, such as soul-making, providence, the cross and the hope of resurrection.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The free-will defense has been refuted.
Correction: Its limited aim, to show consistency, is widely accepted as met. Its use as a full explanation of evil is what the objections challenge.
Misunderstanding: A person who is determined cannot be held responsible under any view.
Correction: Compatibilists deny this. They hold that responsibility depends on acting from one’s own reasons and desires, not on being uncaused. The question is hard and is still debated by philosophers and theologians.
Misunderstanding: Heaven shows there is no need for freedom to include the power to sin.
Correction: That is the critic’s inference. Defenders say heaven’s freedom is the completion of a freedom that was first exercised in a life of choices. Whether that reply works is disputed.
Knowledge check
What is the heaven objection and how do defenders reply?
It says that if the blessed are free and cannot sin, God could have made all free creatures that way from the start. Defenders reply that the blessed are formed by earthly choices, or that they see God and so cannot turn from him, which is perfect freedom, or that character requires a path through trial. Critics say the replies make suffering a mere means.
How does determinism threaten the defense?
The defense says that moral evil comes from the free choices of creatures that God does not control. If all choices are fully determined by prior causes, there is no freedom of that kind, and the defense fails. Compatibilists answer that determined acts can still be free in the sense that matters for responsibility, but they must then explain how God is not the author of sin.
What does Marilyn McCord Adams mean by horrendous evils?
She means evils so deep, such as torture or the abuse of children, that they give the victim reason to doubt that their life can be good. She argues that general replies, such as the value of freedom, do not address the victim. A reply must show how God defeats the evil within the person’s own life.
Is the free-will defense a complete answer to evil?
Most thinkers say no. It addresses moral evil and the logical problem, and it gives one real reason why God might permit some wrongdoing. It does not by itself explain natural evil, the great amount of suffering, or the experience of victims. It is best used with other replies.
Think it through
- Which objection in this lesson troubles you most? Why does it trouble you more than the others?
- Does the idea that freedom is completed in heaven make sense of your experience of moral growth?
- What would a reply to evil have to say to a victim, and not only to a philosopher?
Independent assignment
An objection and a reply
In your own notebook, write about 450 words. Choose one of the three objections in this lesson. State it in its strongest form, as an honest critic would. Then give the best reply a Christian could offer, and then your own judgment on whether the reply succeeds. Include one point on which you are unsure. Keep your work private and take as long as it needs.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Evil Read the sections on the free-will defense and objections.
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Look up the discussion of the will of the blessed in the Supplement or in the First Part on happiness.
- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will Read selectively for a sixteenth-century argument against free will.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Read selectively on providence and on human responsibility.
- Revelation 21:4 God will wipe away all tears, and there will be no more death, sorrow or crying.