xeren

Okay, you all know the the idea of the problem of evil, and the Christian's response to it- free will. But i was reading one of the essays on this website:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/niclas_berggren/theodicy.html</a>

under: 3.3 Mackie's argument

And the idea is that Why couldn't god create a world where we all have free will, and freely only choose good? After all (and this is where i may be mistaken and would love some comments regarding this) what is heaven? Isn't that a place where everone still has free will, and FREELY chooses good? If I believed in heaven but there was no free will there, i certainly wouldn't want to go.

thanks

AtlanticCitySlave

The basic Christian response I always hear to such an argument is that you're not "really free" if you can't choose between good and evil, as well as that you can't be aware of what good is without being aware (and experiencing) what evil is.

Dr S

I can't help but notice, reading the OT, that god didn't give man free will. In fact he was very pissed off that we got it.

The story clearly states that free will came from the talking snake who exposed god as a liar for saying the fruit would cause them to drop dead that day

tronvillain

As far as I can recall, it was "knowledge of good and evil" and not "free will" that came from eating the forbidden fruit. I am not sure that the Old Testament even mentions anything about "free will." In any case, unless we wish to ascribe various flaws and limitations to God, he presumably wanted them to eat the fruit.

Anyway, I have never seen a decent response to that argument.

xeren

True, AtlanticCitySlave
But then what does that make heaven, is my question? Do souls in heaven have no free will then?

tronvillain

Except that is a terrible response, unless Christians propose that there is no reason that one person chooses evil while another chooses good. If that is what they think free will is, I am at a loss as to why anyone would want it.

One-eyed Jack

I read the same essay you did, and I think that the point was just as you state it: it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that beings could exist which were free to choose either good or evil but which had been created wise and moral enough to always choose good. Certainly if there were a man who always chose good no one would say that he had no free will.

On the question of Heaven, I think that the Bible nowhere says that ascended souls lose their free will, and it's not any part of Christian theology. However, I think that Heaven is conceived as a perfect realm, with neither death nor evil, so therefore the denizens of Heaven must through their own free will always choose good instead of evil.

So despite Christian arguments to the contrary, not only is it logically possible that beings could have perfect freewill and still always choose good, the Christian mythos already contains just such a conception (two of them if one counts the reign of Christ on Earth).

managalar

Our local freethought group had some represenatives of the Bha'hi faith come and give us a presentation on their faith. We were told that our actions dictate how far we are from god when we die and that we wanted to be closer to god. I told him it was part of my philosophy to be content with what I have and gave him the example of how I have no knowldge of gods, spiritually apathetic. He was more annoyed when I asked if it would be ok if when I died I was far away from god, but instead of trying to get closer, I just kicked back and enjoyed where I was. This confused him, he informed me that I wanted to be closer to god, which I assured him wasnt the case. He acted like I insulted him and then he just sat back and looked confused. The point is, the intricateness of an abstract existence depends on the individual and wanting to be closer to god and going to god often sums up the extent of free will and range of actions avaliable.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: managalar ]</p>

owleye

One of the better ways of understanding free will, as the scriptures might tell us, is not that we were given it straightaway, but that we were given rationality (i.e., "knowledge" as one of the other respondents mentions) as an antidote to the influences of desires and fears we are ceaselessly under. Using our reason we weigh these influences and check them before they get the better of us. Advertizing is a good example. We are bombarded by the marketing of products, e.g., fast-food hamburgers, supersized, which feed upon our desires (or in other cases on our fears), and, to the extent to which we understand these cravings (if that is what they are) and realize the consequences of our giving in to temptation, we may be in a position to check them and do what is instead in our enlightened self-interest.

In heaven, presumably, there are no desires and fears to overcome -- and everything follows from perfect knowledge (i.e., enlightenment) of what is in our best interest. Choice is still present, but it is relieved of its need to do battle with evil.

owleye

One-eyed Jack

owleye, you wrote: "...and everything follows from perfect knowledge (i.e., enlightenment) of what is in our best interest."

I'd like to take a brief excursion off-topic, if I may, because your statement bears directly on an argument for the non-existence of God.

Premises:
1. Assume the Christian God: omnipotent, eternal, perfect, etc.
2. God's greatest intent is for as many people as possible to attain salvation before their bodily death.
3. Free will precludes forced salvation; therefore to accomplish his greatest intent God wishes that as many people as possible receive His truth: the Word.
4. Assume that God is rational, ie that He does indeed act to accomplish His highest purpose.

Observations:
A. There are many contradictions and errors in God's word, the Bible, which Christian apologists commonly explain as mistakes in translation, copyists' errors, or references to lost scriptures (as when Matthew refers to scriptural prophecies that exist nowhere in the Old Testament).
B. A definite number of people choose not to believe the Bible because of these errors.

To cut to the chase: Here we have a mighty Deity, Creator of the billions of burning suns and of life, who cannot or will not use His unlimited power to further His greatest goal even by the trivial act of preserving an error-free copy of His own scripture! This is something that human proofreaders and editors strive for and in the main accomplish every day--is God unable to accomplish a task that thousands of humans perform daily?

Does providing good information about the choice offered mankind conflict with freewill? Of course not! A used-car salesman may wish to give his customers incomplete or erroneous information but God is no used-car salesman: to provide good information actually furthers the cause of freewill by giving humans a fair shot at making a free choice.

Is God somehow testing us by providing incomplete and contradictory information, perhaps to see who has the faith to believe even in an irrational Scripture? That's as bad or worse than the used-car salesman view of God! On this view, God rewards irrational belief, blind faith, over reason and rationality. A sheep might blindly follow where it is led, but God did not give the Bible to sheep--he gave it to mankind.

If you accept the premises and the evidence, the conclusion is that the Christian God cannot logically exist. Now, this post is mostly a gloss of Theodore Drange's excellent logical analysis of an argument for God's non-existence--read the full essay here:<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html</a>

Enjoy!

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: One-eyed Jack ]</p>