Philosophy of Religion - The Free Will Defence - Advantages and disadvantages table in A Level and IB Philosophy

Created by: Laura Collison
Created on: 05-05-13 14:10


	Philosophy of Religion - The Free Will Defence
	Advantages We would usually assume that a world with free will is better than a world of robots. It does seem that the only way to have true free will is to have the capacity of choosing evil. The 'Beneficial Laws of Nature' could explain the presence of natural evil, i.e. natural evil is an unfortunate side-effect of having laws of nature. Seems to explain moral evil.	Disadvantages God could intervene, miracles show this to be possible (if we ignore the actual debate of the legitimacy of miracles), so why doesn't God intervene more frequently? This could undermine complete free will, but wouldn't it be more omnibenevolent? God could have created a world with free will but no evil, i.e. a world where evil never actualized, but would this really be free will? Assumes that we have free will to start with, there are also arguments for theological determinism. To what extent is the assumption true that a world with free will is better than a world full of robots? Perhaps it would be better to live without evil but also without free will. God could have given us the illusion of free will. Doesn't really explain natural evil, God could have created perfect laws of nature, instead of ones with faults.
	Evaluation The Free Will defence assumes firstly that we have free will, which is debatable, and secondly, that to have free will is better than being determined. Philosophers also usually assume that we have free will most of the time, so this assumption could be ignored (for the most part) in this case. It does seem a legitimate argument that true free will must consist of the capacity to choose either good or evil. If there wasn't this capacity to choose evil, there would not be free will. However, God could have provided us with the illusion of free will, i.e. to give us a sense of freedom but also to stop evil events occurring. Some theists may then reply that it is more omnibenevolent to have true free will than purely the illusion of it, but then we must question what is really omnibenevolent for humanity? Is living in a world with free will and the amount of suffering we have really better than living in a world without evil but where we are not free? This remains to be seen. The Free Will defence doesn't seem to properly explain the presence of natural evil, there is no logical connection between free will and the presence of natural evil. Some theists may then argue that natural evil is purely an unfortunate side-effect of having laws of nature in the world, which are indeed very beneficial to us. It is true that it would be better to have laws of nature with side-effects than no laws of nature at all, but if God is truly omnipotent why didn't He create perfect Laws of Nature without these damaging flaws? A theist may respond that God is under the restraints of the Laws of Nature themselves, but this would completely undermine his omnipotency and also the belief that God created all things. The Free Will Defence can, at best, explain the presence of moral evil but it fails to properly explain natural evil. It assumes that free will is the most omnibenevolent thing, but is this really true? If this is false then the Free Will defence would be an invalid answer to the Problem of Evil.

Philosophy of Religion - The Free Will Defence

Advantages

We would usually assume that a world with free will is better than a world of robots.
It does seem that the only way to have true free will is to have the capacity of choosing evil.
The 'Beneficial Laws of Nature' could explain the presence of natural evil, i.e. natural evil is an unfortunate side-effect of having laws of nature.
Seems to explain moral evil.

Disadvantages

God could intervene, miracles show this to be possible (if we ignore the actual debate of the legitimacy of miracles), so why doesn't God intervene more frequently? This could undermine complete free will, but wouldn't it be more omnibenevolent?
God could have created a world with free will but no evil, i.e. a world where evil never actualized, but would this really be free will?
Assumes that we have free will to start with, there are also arguments for theological determinism.
To what extent is the assumption true that a world with free will is better than a world full of robots? Perhaps it would be better to live without evil but also without free will.
God could have given us the illusion of free will.
Doesn't really explain natural evil, God could have created perfect laws of nature, instead of ones with faults.

Evaluation

The Free Will defence assumes firstly that we have free will, which is debatable, and secondly, that to have free will is better than being determined. Philosophers also usually assume that we have free will most of the time, so this assumption could be ignored (for the most part) in this case. It does seem a legitimate argument that true free will must consist of the capacity to choose either good or evil. If there wasn't this capacity to choose evil, there would not be free will. However, God could have provided us with the illusion of free will, i.e. to give us a sense of freedom but also to stop evil events occurring. Some theists may then reply that it is more omnibenevolent to have true free will than purely the illusion of it, but then we must question what is really omnibenevolent for humanity? Is living in a world with free will and the amount of suffering we have really better than living in a world without evil but where we are not free? This remains to be seen. The Free Will defence doesn't seem to properly explain the presence of natural evil, there is no logical connection between free will and the presence of natural evil. Some theists may then argue that natural evil is purely an unfortunate side-effect of having laws of nature in the world, which are indeed very beneficial to us. It is true that it would be better to have laws of nature with side-effects than no laws of nature at all, but if God is truly omnipotent why didn't He create perfect Laws of Nature without these damaging flaws? A theist may respond that God is under the restraints of the Laws of Nature themselves, but this would completely undermine his omnipotency and also the belief that God created all things. The Free Will Defence can, at best, explain the presence of moral evil but it fails to properly explain natural evil. It assumes that free will is the most omnibenevolent thing, but is this really true? If this is false then the Free Will defence would be an invalid answer to the Problem of Evil.

Get Revising

Philosophy of Religion - The Free Will Defence