bd-from-kg

In this thread I want to focus on the notion that God remains hidden in order to preserve our free will. The reasoning is as follows:

A. If we knew for certain that God existed and truly understood His nature and purposes, we would have no choice but to accept and follow Him.
B. This would deprive us of our free will with respect to the most important decision we will ever make.
C. Our free will is so valuable that God is justified in exposing us to the possibility of eternal damnation by withholding vital knowledge from us.

This argument has a number of problems.

1. (A) is simply false. Even if we had a perfect understanding of God, we would still be able to choose to reject Him. The only true claim is that in this case we would have no rational choice but to accept Him. But human beings can and do make completely irrational choices every day. In fact, Christian theologians have traditionally argued that, even given our present state of knowledge, rejecting God is completely irrational, and it is only our stubborn pride and willfulness that causes some of us to reject Him. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either we can make completely irrational choices or we can’t.

In fact, many Christians such as William Lane Craig argue (or at least speculate) that those who ultimately reject God would have done so in all possible worlds – that is, that it is in their fundamental nature that they will reject God no matter what. But for any given person there are some possible worlds in which he will have as perfect and complete a knowledge and understanding of God as is humanly possible. Certainly those who take this position (or even consider it logically coherent) cannot argue that we would have no choice but to accept God if we had perfect understanding of Him.

Moreover, this argument implies that people like Moses and the disciples, who supposedly looked at God in the face and were given incontrovertible knowledge, amounting to certainty, of His existence, nature, and purposes, had no choice but to accept God and follow Him. Yet there is no suggestion, either in the Bible or in Christian teachings, that these people were thereby deprived of moral agency. On the contrary, they are (with the exception of Judas) revered as moral exemplars.

And finally, if we are to accept the teachings of the Bible and the Christian church, Satan had the most perfect knowledge and understanding of God imaginable, yet chose to reject Him.

2. (B) is based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be able to choose freely.

Suppose that I am presented with a strawberry and chocolate milkshake and told that I can have one or the other. As it happens, I love strawberry milkshakes and absolutely detest chocolate ones. In fact, strawberry makes me euphoric, gives me incredible energy, and makes my mind work much better than usual for several days, whereas chocolate makes me sick, gives me a rash, and makes me constipated for a week. So this isn’t exactly a tough call; faced with these options I always choose strawberry. Does this mean that in this situation I do not have free will – that I am not freely choosing strawberry? Of course not. It simply means that, given my nature, I will always freely choose strawberry in this situation.

Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. For example, I freely chose to marry Linda, the woman I love, rather than Doris, whose personality and appearance I find repulsive, and whom I believe to be of contemptible moral character. Faced with the same options I would make the same choice every time. Does that mean that I did not choose freely? Don’t be ridiculous. It simply means that I would freely choose Linda any time I was faced with these options.

Finally, consider Edwards, who is of such upright character that he would never even consider keeping something that belongs to someone else. He finds a wallet with a large amount of money inside, along with documents identifying the owner. Naturally he returns it. Is his act praiseworthy? Well, it is generally accepted that a person is to be neither praised nor blamed for an action unless he acted freely – that is, unless had “free will” with respect to that act. But the logic of the argument we are considering here is that, since Edwards was certain to choose to return the wallet, he did not do so freely, which is to say that he did not have free will regarding this choice, and therefore his action is not worthy of praise. This seems especially untenable when we remember that, if there were even one chance in a billion that Edwards might have chosen to keep the money, his decision to return it would (according to the point of view we are considering here) be extremely praiseworthy. Edwards has made the mistake of becoming too incorruptible, and as a result, though perfectly virtuous, he is no longer worthy of praise! Unless we are willing to take this absurd position, we must abandon the idea that the fact that one is certain to make a particular choice means that we do not have free will regarding that decision.

The lesson from all of these examples is that, if we are faced with a choice between A and B, we can be said to choose A freely (that is, to have free will regarding this choice) even if it is certain that we will choose A because we find A overwhelmingly preferable to B.

But of course this demolishes the original argument. Even if we were certain that God existed and had a perfect understanding of His nature and purposes, it might well be that we would certainly accept Him, but we would still be choosing to do so freely.

3. (A) and (B) entail that it is unjust to punish nonbelievers as such.

A mainstay of Christian theology is that those who reject God do so willfully and rebelliously, and are therefore “without excuse”. But this is incompatible with the argument we are considering here. Either rational nonbelief is possible on the basis of the available evidence or it isn’t. If it is, those who have a rational nonbelief in God have a perfectly good “excuse”: there is insufficient evidence that God exists to compel rational belief. Nonbelief based on a lack of adequate evidence is obviously not culpable; it cannot be justly punished. But if rational nonbelief is not possible, it cannot be argued that God remains hidden to preserve the possibility of rational nonbelief. That is, (A) cannot be true, since (as noted above) the most that can be said along these lines is that clear evidence of God’s existence would preclude rational nonbelief.

4. (C) is incompatible with the notion of Hell as traditionally understood.

After a few quadrillion years in Hell, it would dawn on even the most determined, stubborn rebel that his torment is never going to end, and that he has made a terrible mistake. At that point he would obviously want to end his rebellion. So why doesn’t God allow him to do so? The traditional Christian response is that when a rebel dies (or perhaps at the Last Judgment) he undergoes a spiritual death and loses his free will; thus he is unable to change his original decision and accept God. But why would God do this? If the preservation of the rebel’s free will is the justification for allowing him to experience eternal torment, what is the justification for destroying this very free will which has cost him so dearly? If interfering with one’s free will is such a terrible thing that God refuses to do it even when it is being used to make a horribly ill-advised decision, how can it be right for Him not only to interfere with it, but to annihilate it?

5. Free will is not enhanced by ignorance, nor reduced by knowledge.

This is perhaps the most important point of all.

Let’s consider some examples.

1. Smith can get to his destination by taking the bridge or the tunnel. He decides to take the bridge. You happen to know that the bridge is going to collapse soon, and if he goes that way he’ll be on it at the time and get killed. You decide not to tell Smith about this because it would leave him with only one rational choice, thereby depriving him of his free will in the matter.

Does this make sense? Of course not. What Smith really wants is not to take the bridge, but to get home by the best route. By failing to tell him that going by way of the bridge is not only not the best route home, but won’t get him home at all, you are depriving him of his ability to do what he wants. Describing this as “enhancing” or “preserving” his free will is a sick joke.

2. Smith is driving a semi with an unusually large load, and you happen to know that the bridge will collapse if Smith tries to cross it. Once again, you decide not to tell him so as not to deprive him of his free will.

Does this make better sense than the first example? It’s hard to see why. It’s true that the bridge’s collapse will be the result of Smith’s decision, but he had no way of knowing this other than being told by you.

3. The bridge is actually sound, but you have the power to blow it up at any time. Before Smith makes his decision, you decide to blow it up while Smith is on it if he should choose to go that way. Once again, you decide not to tell him about your intentions so as not to deprive him of his free will.

Does this make any more sense than the other examples? Is your withholding of information more justified than before because it’s information about what you intend to do if Smith makes the one choice rather than the other?

Now lets’ go back to the second example for a moment. Suppose that Smith had been able to figure out somehow that there was a chance that the bridge would collapse because of the weight of his semi. Wouldn’t this have left him with no choice? And wouldn’t this have “deprived” him of his free will in the matter just as much as if you had told him? If this were such a bad thing, wouldn’t it be rational to avoid seeking new information when making a decision? After all, every piece of new information might eliminate at least choice from the list of rational choices. Indeed, it would seem that the more information you have, the less free will you have. Since free will is extremely valuable – more valuable than being able to make the choice that’s really in your best interests - it would seem to follow that you should always, at all costs, try to avoid getting information about a decision before making it. In fact, when you have an important decision to make, the best possible state is one of total ignorance about the consequences; that way the set of rational choices (and thus your free will) is maximized.

The same reasoning applies in the third example. The less you know about how various beings are likely to react to your possible choices, the better off you are, because you will have more rational choices. If your boss will fire you if you demand a raise, it’s better not to know since that would make demanding a raise an irrational choice. Better to preserve your infinitely valuable free will than keep your job.

The conclusion here is plain. We can define free will in this weird way, so that an increase in knowledge entails a loss of free will, but in that case it is impossible to maintain that free will is valuable. But in that case (C) is false. Or we can define it in a halfway reasonable way so that an increase in knowledge does not entail a loss of free will. But in that case (B) is false. Either way the argument fails.

In short, the “free will” explanation for God’s hiddenness fails on all counts.

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bd-from-kg,

A few notes...
Your missing the point here. The point of A is not that knowledge of God would destroy free-will philosophically...it's that it would destroy free-will practically. Big difference. Of course we still have freedom to choose. But that choice would be even more blatantly obvious than offering a child either A-candy or B-beatings. There is no child that would choose B. Likewise, there is no human that would choose not-God given God were an undeniable fact of life.


See above. It would not deprive us of our freewill 'technically'...it would practically.


This is shaky for two reasons:1-a basic misunderstanding of the concept of Hell but more importantly 2-the purpose of free will to begin with.

Your story simply asks 'What we be so wrong with God giving people in Hell a second chance after a million years?'

The purpose of Hell is NOT to change a persons mind or give them a second chance. This should be completely obvious...there are numerous ways God could change a persons mind without the advent of Hell.

God gave us freedom so that, and this is extremely important, with absolutely no coersion of any kind we would choose to seek Him. That without the glories of Heaven and the despairs of Hell staring us smack dab in the face we make a choice to seek God. Those that do find Him.

Hell is not a single choice a person makes, but a choice one makes over the entirety of their lives. In some sick sense, people in Hell get exactly what they sought...a world without God.

Thought and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

MadMordigan

In some sick sense, people in Hell get exactly what they sought...a world without God.

Ok, it seems that what you are saying is that I already exist in hell. I don't experience god, he is either not there or totally hidden from me.

The problem is, I don't find this existance anything like the Hell that is threatened by theists. Life isn't so bad, in fact, there are alot of things that make it great. About the only intractable bad thing is that I know its going to end.

Why exactly should an eternity in an existance like this one be feared?

Grumpy

An intriguing thought, but not without its own quandries. First, is the godlessness of Hell somehow more extreme than the godlessness of life on Earth? Assuming God's action on this plane is necessary for coherent existence (like, say, he causes time to flow properly, or keeps atoms from flying apart), then a Hell without God would be a chaotic place indeed.

Of course, residents of this plane of existence would notice something amiss upon entering Hell (assuming our consciousness could survive the transition). "What's wrong?" we'd say. Being already predisposed to unbelief, we might never conclude that this was the hellish result of being forever separated from God.

We would eventually figure out something unnatural (or supernatural) was going on. If, for example, worms continually eat our flesh but we do not die after many centuries; that might clue us in.

And this is how it relates to the problem of Divine Hiddenness: Why must we humans decide the fate of our immortal souls now, before death, when we won't have all the facts until later? God apparently will make himself, or his presence or absence, unavoidably obvious in the afterlife. It would be incumbent on him to disclose the same information presently, or else lift the ban on post mortem spiritual commitment.

not a theist

I don't see that there is any difference.
So? In point of fact, christian theology does just this very thing. This is the very sort of offer it makes- heaven of hell. So it seems that you are arguing against Christianity here.
And this would be bad because...?

MadMordigan

Likewise, there is no human that would choose not-God given God were an undeniable fact of life.


And this would be bad because...?

This another problem with this line of apologetic. Is there some reason your god doesn't want everyone to choose him?

Theli

There's abit of the problem free will. Let's just assume god,heaven, hell, good and evil exists.
It seems strange to me that god finds our free will so important but then doesn't really award us for using that free will.
He creates heaven/hell, and tells us what we need to do to reach heaven, and what we will end up in hell for doing.
It doesn't really sound as he want's us to be able to commit evil. Someone said that if humans were unable to commit evil we would turn into mindless robots.
I disagree, because thinking like that is like painting everything black and white. It's like saying that all actions and all decisions has 2 outcomes. One that is good, and the other that is evil.
And taking away the evil, renders us incapable of choosing an outcome. This is very onedimensional thinking. If god made us "good" to begin with we would still have free will. I mean (just as a small example), when I woke up this morning I was faced with a choice. Put on a T-shirt first or put on pants first, now wich of these 2 choices is evil and wich is good?
One other thing, if earth without evil turns people into zombies, then shouldn't heaven do the same thing?

Of course, this whole heaven/hell idea is so clearly fabricated. Do as we say or you'll be forever punished!
How can someone love god, when he punishes people in such extreme ways?
It's like loving a father who beats his children to death for stealing some candy.
If someone murders someone else, it's not because his soul is evil.
Natures law seems more fitting (the strong survives) since the concepts of good and evil is very much invented by humans. And those terms are used VERY loosely.

Vorkosigan

Hell is not a single choice a person makes, but a choice one makes over the entirety of their lives. In some sick sense, people in Hell get exactly what they sought...a world without God.

Really? You mean this? A world without god? A world without religious butchery? Without people scrabbling for donations? Without yammerheads knocking on your door spreading their poisonous beliefs? Without stupid rules about who you can fuck and in what position? Without religious prejudice, narrowmindedness and insecurity? Without the religious tax deduction? Without pinheads marginalizing non-believers at every turn? Without one day a week inconvenient because of some superstition? Without entire regions "dry" because interfering do-gooders are terrified lest someone be having fun, and cannot take responsibility for their own behavior? Without the constant threats of hell, accusations, and guilt trips? Without the desperate need for power and control?

Is this a promise? If I go on being an atheist, I can wind up in a paradise like that? See everybody there!

Michael

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mad Mordigan,
Not really. The main difference between life now and hell is this: In life if you seek God you will find him...in hell this is not the case.

As such God is not really 'totally hidden' from you as you said.


It shouldn't. However, hell will be nothing like this existence. If all good things do come from God, total separation from God would mean complete absence of anything 'good'. For lack of a better term...it would be hell. (:^))

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metalic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Grumpy,
Yes.

As mentioned in my response to MadMordigan, in life if you seek God you will find him. Hell does not afford this choice.


A misleading question: It assumes that one CAN'T have all the facts they need to make a choice about God now.


Thoughts and comments welcomed.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas