sophie

winstonjen : At least you are picking up a few clues, now we only have to surge past the basics.

the_cave

Actually, these are pretty good alternatives for the Christian. At least, I agree with them...

the_cave

Hi Jamie--similarly, if I've tried to reply to these before, I apologize if I'm repeating myself!

To address the original OP, I think that the thing is, everyone needs to be granted the opportunity to choose the good. If we happen upon someone against whom a crime is being committed, or if we discover a criminal, we need the opportunity to stop them or arrest them. If an angel saved everyone all of the time, our freedom to do that would be denied. Frustrating, but at least consistent.

I view mental illnesses as the equivalent of acts of god--earthquakes, etc. They are natural phenomena that cause suffering. I admit that many traditional Christian theodicies (i.e. attempts to explain evil) don't do a very good job of explaining acts of god, but I feel they are a necessary part of a universe in which we have free will. In order to have natural beings, like us, who have natural free will, nature itself must have a certain amount of chaos--or freedom, if you will--to produce such beings. It's a controversial and perhaps radical claim, but there it is. That's what I believe.

Quote:

2. Our supposed "free will" is clearly slanted towards causing suffering. If I could heal a wond as easily as I can cause one, I would truely have a free choice between causing and alleviating suffering. If we could end hunger as easily as drop a bomb, or heal the emotional wounds of a rape victim in the amount of time it took to rape her, then we could talk about having true free will to choose between good and evil. As it stands, it's much more difficult to do good - meaning we don't have as much free will to do good as we have to do evil.

But couldn't you turn this around and note the amount of suffering one saves by refraining from acts of evil? Think of how much suffering is prevented by the millions who do not committ acts of extreme violence (like rape). So it would seem very easy to do a lot of good.

That's one perspective, anyway. But it seems you might still not be satisfied, because of how easy it still is to take that good away. I guess I would begin to answer that question by questioning whether an act of evil is really just a single, isolated act--or whether it's actually related to a long chain of evils. Generally speaking, people with good dispositions don't suddenly snap and turn into roving murderers. They go through a history that helps to cause their actions, and that history might take as long to create as it takes to undo the results of their evil acts. I admit that's not an airtight argument, but regardless I find it sobering, personally.

Quote:

3. Imagine the most moral human in the world. He or she is out there somewhere. That person has free will (supposedly) and that person does good more often than not. God knows everything about that person. God created that person. An omnipotent God could creat that person again. Would the duplicate of that person have free will? If God created him/her the first time with free will, surely God could do it again. If God created that person again, would they be as moral as they could be? I see no compelling reason why not. So, God can make a person with free will who chooses to be moral. Why didn't he create us all that way? Free Will does not have to entail as much suffering as we see on this planet.

Well, actually, no, there woudn't be any guarantee that they would be exactly as good. That's what free will is all about--in my opinion, if we're really talking about free will, then there's always a chance they'll make different decisions (if you have a different definition of "free will" than I do, we're going to disagree about this.)

Quote:

4. The OP has it right. If God is maximally benevolent, He allows no suffering that is unnecessary. Thus, any suffering we observe must be necessary to God. I.E. that suffering is God's will. Trying to stop that suffering goes against God's will. Acting in opposition to God's will is the very definition of sin. Stopping suffering is a sin.

The amount of suffering is not necessary to God--the possibility of suffering, however, is. God doesn't will the suffering, but s/he does will the possibility.

Throwing the criminal into prison is a good act--so we should choose it. We're not denying the criminal the possibility of choosing evil--they can still do bad things in prison, after all (beat up cellmates, think bad thoughts, spit in people's food, plan their revenge, etc.) We certainly shouldn't deny our freedom to do good in favor of their freedom to do evil. The point of free will is the possibility to choose evil--not to carry it out. That's what I argue, anyway.

winstonjen

Sorry, but I will not abandon reason, logic or the scientific method. Unlike you, I require evidence before I will believe in something.

K

the_cave:

I think you're missing the point. Jamie_L stated it very well.

If we do anything at all to impede a person's actions in any way, we have lessened (not eliminated) the free will of that individual. If we intervene to stop a rape, we are restricting the free will of the rapist in this situation in order to reduce suffering.

If stopping the rape reduces the amount of good in the world (due to a restriction of the rapist's free will) then intervening is clearly a sin.

If stopping the rape does not reduce the amount of good in the world, then there is no reason for God not to stop the rape Himself. Any omnibenevolent diety - by definition - would have to intervene.

dienekes

but what about "God's plan"? doesn't this make freewill seem an illusion? If God has already planned everything then we don't have freewill at all. He has already chosen a path for us. It seems that we have a choice but in reality we do not. We only see the "other" choices we have but we don't/cannot choose it because "everything is happening according to God's plan".

the_cave

I agree, she did.

Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I tried to suggest a solution to this thusly:

[quote][b]If we happen upon someone against whom a crime is being committed, or if we discover a criminal, we need the opportunity to stop them or arrest them. If an angel saved everyone all of the time, our freedom to do that would be denied. Frustrating, but at least consistent.[quote][b]

See? We ourselves need to be granted the free will to prevent evil! It's kind of tricky, but personally I like it.

Besides, even an atheist might hold liberty to be a highly valued principle. But would that mean they themselves would refrain from denying someone else the liberty to cease from their evil actions, when those actions were directly harming another person? I doubt it--so why should they hold God to a higher standard?

DMB

For me, one of the most disgusting xian ideas is that someone else's suffering (in this case the rape victim's) is OK if it affords someone else the chance for spiritual development (also evidenced by Mother Teresa).

Philosoft

Okay, but the average person lives her life without ever willfully preventing a crime. Many more crimes succeed than are prevented by ordinary citizens, so all that accomplishes is allowing a handful of law-enforcement specialists the opportunities to put a bunch of criminals in jail. It seems if God was able to reduce crime by some arbitrary amount, say 25%, there would still be plenty of criminals for the law-enforcement specialists to deal with.

Again, it seems that God might reduce natural chaos further still without impinging on free will. The argument can be made that disasters like massive earthquakes, hurricanes, etc, bring people together to work for some common good, i.e. the rescue of survivors. Also, you might see secondary effects, like a man whose brother dies in an earthquake who dedicates his professional life to designing safer structures.

But what about the orphan in Pakistan who is trapped alive under rubble for nine days? She suffers immensely, dying of dehydration, rescue crews have no idea she's there. She has no family to be inspired by her death. How would the prevention of this child's death harm free will at all?

Quote:

The amount of suffering is not necessary to God--the possibility of suffering, however, is. God doesn't will the suffering, but s/he does will the possibility.

Then it certainly seems that God has the freedom to eliminate some unnecessary suffering that occurs.

Biff the unclean

Well look for a monent at what the whole "free will" concept is. It's god doing nothing.
God does nothing in this world for the simple reason that god is a fictional character. In the fictional world he lives in he's a superhero. He's very pro-active, not a sparrow falls without his involvement.
But the real world? Nothing.
This is the same "free will" that Superman honors when you lean too far out a window and fall to your death. If you lived in Metropolis free will wouldn't be so harmful to you. Superman would catch you as you fell, and he'd get the helicopter with his other hand.
If you lived in the fictional world of god you'd be saved as surely as Clark Kent saves people, the sea would part in the nick of time or your schirophrenia would be sucked out of you and put in a herd of piggies. Tah Daaah!! This looks like a job for God. Up, up and awaaaaaay!!!!!!

That Xians ignore human suffering isn't that odd when you consider everything else they ignore...like reality itself