FREE WILL

Question 1

What are the main subjects discussed in the free will defence?

Answer 1

• Argues that evil is the result of our free will not God’s will.
• God gave us free will, as something that is very good and an essential part of humanity. Without we would be robots.
• It is better to have a universe with free will than without.
• Being morally imperfect- we do not always use our free will for good, and sometimes bring about evil.
• But God cannot (and should not) intervene.
• Given how good free will is, it is still better we have free will and sometimes use it to bring about evil than we don’t have free will at all.
• Having free will is sufficiently important to be worth the risk of evil.
• In order to have a genuine relationship with God, humans must have free choice to choose God.

Question 2

Explain Kierkegaard’s parable of the king and the peasant girl.

Answer 2

Firstly wanted to force the peasant girl to marry him, secondly wanted to bribe her with his riches but decided to become a peasant himself and win her over himself.

This is representative of God (the king) and mankind (the peasant girl) as for the peasant girl’s love to be genuine she had to have no other influences and must have had free will.

Question 3

What did Swinburne say about the free will defence?

Answer 3

• Intervention would jeopardise human freedom and take away the need for responsibility and freedom.
• If God intervenes at all then humans do not have total freedom of choice.
• God would be like an overprotective parent.
• Although God is omnipotent, he can only do what is logically possible, and it would not be logically possible for God to take away evil and suffering while granting us free will.
• Swinburne argues that natural evil such as death limits the moral evil humans can do to each other. Natural death limits life, meaning that humans are fully responsible for their actions and do not have an infinite amount of opportunities to put it right.

Question 4

Outline strengths of the FWD.

Answer 4

• Logically explains moral evil and removes blame from God- leaving attributes in tact.
• Plantinga: “Although humans sometimes freely choose good, if God designed them so that they always did, they would not truly be free. Their actions would be predetermined, like the decisions made by robots.
• C.S. Lewis: The benefits of free will are sufficient to justify the inherent risk of evil (e.g. heroics).
• Christianity: Free will brings for Christians the greatest reward of all: Unity with God in heaven. Jesus makes it possible to gain God’s forgiveness for sin and form an eternal relationship with him. Only achieved through free choice.
• Swinburne explains both moral and natural evil using FWD.

Question 5

Outline the weaknesses of the free will defence.

Answer 5

• Vardy: fails to explain the existence of natural evil in the world. Floods and disease cannot be blamed on human choice.
• Rowe: There are examples where natural evil does not contribute to any greater good.
• J L Mackie: determinists believe every action has already been decided by God- nothing more than an effect of a prior cause. Therefore freedom is an illusion anyway, so cannot justify suffering. God’s omniscience suggests we are determined and already knows our choices so we cannot truly be free.
• If God knows everything that would happen before he created it, he deliberately created a world with evils such as the holocaust. If he didn’t know then he is not omniscient.