Free will is overrated, at least as framed by Christianity. It’s not that I want to feel compelled to do this or that, but I’m willing to give up certain “freedoms” for the betterment of humanity.
Take the freedom to kill or torture children, for example. According to the Christian notion of free will, we must have the ability to do such an awful thing else we’d be robots.
This ability to torture the innocent wouldn’t really be a theological/philosophical problem were it not for the insistence that the Christian God is, among other things,
- completely good,
- all knowing, and
- all powerful.
Put those three together with the world’s suffering and we have a problem. In order to explain the suffering, we have to compromise. Maybe God isn’t all knowing, and isn’t aware of the suffering. Maybe God isn’t completely benevolent and doesn’t want to do something about the suffering. Or perhaps God knows about the suffering and wants to alleviate it, but being limited, there’s nothing he can do about it.
Since none of these alternatives are acceptable to most believers, Christians explain suffering by invoking free will and saying that it couldn’t be any other way if humans are to be more than robots.
But free will doesn’t fly, especially considering the patriarchal God we see in the Bible.
God is seen, among other things, as the perfect father. “Our Father who art in heaven” pray Christians every Sunday; Jesus, in the Gospel narratives, cries out to “Abba” — “Papa” — while being crucified. God is the ultimate father.
This post was inspired by Thud’s “The Org Chart God.”
I too am a father, and if I imagine treating my child (eventually children) like the Christian God treats his children, I shudder.
A thought experiment: in the future, my wife and I have a second child. At some point, our first-born daughter gets the notion that it would be a pretty good idea to see if rocks can bounce off little brother’s head. If I’m standing by and do nothing about it, what kind of father am I? That kind of behavior would rightly be labeled child abuse.
“But, Your Honor,” I protest before the judge, “I was just giving my daughter the ability to practice her free will.”
In the real world, “free will” doesn’t cut it. We might have the Twinkie legal defense and any number of other, bizarre explanations/excuses for behavior, but I don’t know that any lawyer has ever tried the “free will” defense, and for good reason: it’s absurd.
And yet Christians use the free will defense daily to get their God acquitted.
A correlative defense is the “God’s ways are not our ways” defense. This raises just as many questions as it is supposed to answer, but suffice it to say that any being whose ways include non-intervention when children are suffering is not a being I have much respect for.
The bottom line is that there really is no adequate answer for the problem of evil. Indeed, some of the more traditional answers seem quite outdated, as John Hagee discovered recently when he suggested that God allowed, even directed, the Holocaust through Hitler. Yet this was nothing new. Jewish theologians have been saying similar things for centuries.
Pastor Hagee’s view that an omnipotent God must sanction the evil in our world actually has deep roots in Jewish thought. To cite just one example, the Talmud teaches us that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed because of “sinat hinam,” or baseless hatred. In other words, our own Talmud teaches that God used the Romans to perpetrate the greatest tragedy in the history of the Jewish people (until the Holocaust) because of Jewish sins. (haaretz.com)
The defense of God’s actions — or apparent lack thereof — is a distasteful activity to begin with, so it’s not surprising that we can so mangle ideas that they come out sounding offensive to casual listeners. Then again, why should finite humans get stuck defending an infinite being?
The problem of evil is what ultimately led me away from theism, but that’s somewhat surprising considering how theists frame the question in relation to their faith: there is no answer, but I have faith that there is a reason, that it will all make sense. Yet it seldom does make sense during our Earthly lives.
Interesting that you are guilty of what you accuse the theist crowd; framing the issue in relation to your view.
Overall, a good example of working from one or two premises that are flawed without examining other possibilities, thereby excluding other possibilities.
The pot calls the kettle black in classic form.
I appreciate the comment. However, it is sufficiently vague to constitute little more than an ad hominem argument.
Care to elaborate? What are the one or two premises you think I’m working from? How am I ignoring other possibilities?
I’m a simple man — enlighten me.
I appreciate your honesty. I suggest you read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. He dealt with the issue in a very straightforward way. Then after you’ve had time to digest Lewis, go on the question of why God wants us to praise Him. D. Peters
I’m not sure that I have a grasp of the issues surrounding free will, but I have to admit that I have thought a lot about the ways in which religious adults make use of children to express their own beliefs. Recently, I read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” and he mentioned in passing that some Muslim parents had volunteered their children for use in clearing minefields following the Iran-Iraq. Apparently, the parents believed that their children would be guaranteed a place in the divine afterlife should they lose their corporeal existence in the process of mine-sweeping. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The parents may believe in a certain truth, but I think most children believe only in their parents and don’t really have a position on most questions of faith – at least not until they are older. It bothers me that adults would take advantage of their positions of authority to subject children to such dangerous and sometimes deadly experiences.
Children often have no free will, Mr. Peckham, when their parents deny it to them. That is one of the more difficult things to do as a parent. We don’t want to see our children suffer when they make mistakes, but to deny them free will like the story you mention–inexcusable.
Some might think that what I wrote could be applied to the argument I make in this post. However, I’m not advocating allowing our children the free will involved in hurting others, just themselves.
“However, it is sufficiently vague to constitute little more than an ad hominem argument.”
Never mind that, Gary, Billy-boy there has been beating bibles at Armstrongists and ex-Armstrongists for years, ever since he “found Jebus”.
Just check out his recent loooooooooooong screeds over at Shadows, and his arrogant, attitude-prone responses to anyone who dares (Who DARES I tell you!) to disagree with His Holiness Himself Hohmann who has THE Way THE Truth and THE Life, and if you don’t buy in, it’s burnation for you.