FREE ESSAY ON FREE WILL DEFENSE AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

FREE WILL DEFENSE AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

The Free Will Defense and The Problem of Evil 
After the World War II and the Holocaust, many Jewish and Christian people were left
wondering why God would let such a thing happen. Many felt estranged, as if God had
somehow abandoned them in their most desperate time of need. The world needed an
explanation as to why God would let such a thing happen to his so-called "children". This
need for an explanation of why evil exists in a world that is supposed to have been
created by an all-powerful and all-loving God has plagued religious believers for
centuries. Because of this need, many scholars have sought out explanations. This search
for an answer to the problem of evil has resulted in many theodicies, or defenses of God
in view of the existence of evil. One such defense is known as the free will defense. The
free will defense attempts to combat the problem of evil by rationalizing that evil is
the result human action and therefore, God is not to be held accountable for it. This
essay will discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the free will defense. Before we
can discuss the free will defense, we must define the different types of evil that exist.
Philosophers distinguish between two types of evil that exist in this world, natural evil
and moral evil. Natural evils are those evils that occur that are outside of our control,
or more simply put, the evils exist in nature. These evils include natural disasters like
earth quakes, floods, and tornados. They also include other forms of "chance" occurrences
that are out of our control. Moral evils, on the other hand, are the evils that are in
the control of humans and result from human action. They include things such as murder,
rape, theft, etc. Evil, both natural and moral, creates many problems and contradictions
regarding the existence of God. One such problem that has been created by the existence
and abundance of evil in the world can be summed up into one logical argument: God is
supposed to be all-loving and all-powerful, but how can he be all-loving and all-powerful
and at the same time allow the existence of evil and suffering in this world. This is
essentially the idea behind the problem of evil for many believers. It is also the basis
for the argument that many disbelievers use to disprove the existence of God. There are
many approaches taken by theologians to answer the problem mentioned above. The free will
defense, in particular, is one of the most popular approaches. This approach makes its
argument by attacking the purposed idea that an all-loving and all-powerful God cannot
exist in a world where evil exists and is in abundance. The argument says that when God
created humans, he gave us was the ability to choose our course of actions for ourselves.
He did this because He wanted us to have the ability to choose on our own between right
and wrong, good and evil, and believing in Him or not. God could not create humans
without giving them free will. If He had done so, then humanity's faith in God and their
actions of piousness would mean nothing. We would essentially be robots. That is why God
gave us free will, despite knowing that it would result in evil, suffering, and the
questioning of his existence. The argument goes on to state that since humanity has free
will, they are responsible for their own actions. The evil that exists in this world and
the bad things that result from it are a direct result of human action. Humanity may be
tempted by the appeal of evil, but regardless of this, it is still humanity's choice of
whether or not to choose to commit evil. If humanity does indeed choose to commit evil,
it is their fault, not God's. Therefore, humanity is held accountable, not God, for the
presence of evil in the world, because the choice to sin was made by humanity alone.
Regarding the free will defense, some philosophers and theologians, like Ediegar
Burkovitz, believe that while God is not held accountable in the here and now, he is held
accountable in the afterlife. God may not be responsible for the evil that we create in
this world, but He is responsible for giving us free will. God knew that humanity was
bound to choose evil, because we are imperfect, and therefore, He is in some way
responsible. All the innocent people that suffered because of the evil acts of others
must be compensated in the afterlife for being faithful to God, in spite their suffering.
This is why some believe that for the free will defense to work, there must be a
dimension beyond time and history where all suffering finds its course. Biblical support
of the free will defense can be seen in the story of Adam and Eve. In story of Genesis,
God created a perfect world for Adam and Eve to live in, The Garden of Eden, where they
had no need for want or sin. Adam and Eve might have had no need to sin, but God gave
them the ability to choose their actions for themselves. Both Adam and Eve were tempted
by the Devil to rebel against God's commands and chose to sin. They made this choice of
their own accord. This example of the Original Sin shows that when God first created
humanity, He valued moral independence so highly that He gave humanity a sense of free
will, despite knowing that they might choose to commit evil. It also reinforces the idea
that humanity is responsible for its plight and the existence of evil in the world today.
The free will defense is such a popular theodicy because it has such a logical way of
explaining evil. It forces humanity to hold itself accountable for the evil that exists
in the world and it gives good reasons for why this evil exists. As the logic goes, God
could not eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish
other goals that are important to Him. Certainly, for God to create human beings that are
capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings that are
capable of freely loving Him and following His will without coercion. Unfortunately, the
logic of the argument fails when approached from certain angles. The free will defense
provides a good explanation as to why moral evil exists in the world, but in order for
the free will defense to work, it must adequately explain not only moral evil, but
natural evil as well. This is where the free will defense is weakest. Some might argue
that there are evil forces in the world that cause natural evil, and because of this God
is not responsible for these evils. There is no proof, however, that such evil forces
exist, so this argument fails. Others argue that humans indirectly cause natural evil,
for example, floods caused due to deforestation. However, this argument fails too,
because there are countless other natural evils that are not caused in any way by humans,
like hurricanes or tornados. Natural evils that exist in the world are not the result of
human action, but that of nature, which is attributed to God. The free will defense
essentially fails to free God of the responsibility of natural evil; therefore, the free
will defense cannot adequately answer the problem of natural evil since natural evil is
not the result of human action. The free will defense is not entirely infallible when
applied to moral evil either. One philosopher who has found flaw in this argument is John
Mackie. Mackie's argument is that, "If God has made men such that in their free choices
they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made
men such that they always freely choose the good?" Religion's response to this argument
is that if God had done this then it would still limit humanity's free will by not
allowing humanity the ability to choose the bad in addition to the good. Mackie responds
by saying that the church contradicts itself when it says that free will cannot exist in
such a state because when the church seeks "a happier or more perfect state of affairs
than now exists...they are explicitly recognizing the possibility of a state of affairs
in which created beings always freely choose the good." By this logic, Mackie is able to
prove that it was indeed possible for God to create a world in which suffering does not
exist in such abundance. Therefore, God is in some way accountable for the suffering that
exists in this world, because he could have prevented it and still maintained free will.
The free will defense is a very functional way of approaching evil in this world. It
allows people to logically understand and accept the fact that evil is able to exist in a
world that an all-knowing and all-powerful God created. This defense is not infallible;
in fact, it has several flaws and critics. It does, however, adequately answer the
problem of evil for many believers. It might not be able to turn the disbeliever into a
believer, but it will provide assurance for those who feel doubt in their religious faith
because of the abundance of evil that exists in the world. Theodicies are an important
thing for the believer. The believer must know that God is just, all-loving, and
all-powerful, for his faith the be strong, and I believe, despite the inconsistencies in
the argument, that the free will defense does indeed assure these things.