Why God permits wickedness..the argument and counter logic

by wherehasmyhairgone 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nvrgnbk

  Hello, Burn.

  What do you make of the naturalistic view that there is no such thing as contra-causal free will or ultimate self-determination?

  That what humans do, they do as a result of genetics and environment.

  If persons are not self-made, but entirely the product of genetic and environmental conditions, this means that their virtues and faults are not a matter of will or self-chosen character. Rather, individuals are shaped by circumstances that can themselves be modified to produce people that are happier, more productive, more creative, and less needy. The myth of ultimate self-determination ( contra-causal free will) blocks the design of a more humane society by blaming persons for their shortcomings instead of understanding the conditions that create them. Likewise, this myth touts material success as the triumph of free will, so that it's thought to be justifiably restricted to those who "deserve" to succeed. Under naturalism, the allocation of resources is understood not to reflect what is deserved on the basis of self-caused virtue , but what is needed for each of us to live a desirable life . Therefore social policies will be encouraged which seek to maximize the opportunities for each person's development, independent of differences inherited talent or social status.

  http://www.naturalism.org/conseque.htm
• 

  BurnTheShips

  -If suffering is allowed because of the importance of humans having free will, does that mean God will take away people's free will when they reach that promised place (whatever one's religion say that is) in order to prevent further suffering and evil?

  I don't know Awakened. I think we will retain free will, and that if we reach that promised place it will be because we freely chose it (although i think the ability to choose is enabled by God). How that will correlate with a cessation of Evil? I don't know. I guess it is something to ponder.

  And taking the biblical approach, does it mean Adam and Eve were not created with a free will (no suffering from the outset), but gained a free will when they willingly and freely chose(!) to eat of the forbidden fruit?

  Adam and Eve evidently were created with a free will, and through a free choice ate of the "fruit".

  Things to consider,

  Burn
• 

  Awakened07

  I don't want to impose my thoughts on anyone, but to me it's rather clear that this argument about free will being the cause, goes as follows:

  Evil and suffering ----> with free will.

  In future (and/or after death), mankind go to a place without evil and suffering.

  Without evil and suffering ----> without free will.

  Perhaps my logic is flawed as I'm rather tired right now.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  nvrgnbk,

  When it comes to that issue ( contra-causal free will or ultimate self-determination), I think it is a little bit of both. I think our potentialities are partly determined by our physical makeup and its formative environment, but that within that framework we will what we wish. I am nothing if I am not an anti-determinist . This puts me at loggerheads not just with Naturalists of the Spinozan bent but also with Calvinist Christians.

  As for the social theory outlined in the quote, who gets to set the social policy that tries to "maximize the opportunities for each person's development, independent of differences inherited talent or social status."?

  Arguing from the naturalist position, it would have to be humans, who the quote itself states are "entirely the product of genetic and environmental conditions"!

  Internally self contradictory.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Awakened,

  Maybe, but I don't see it that way, I see Free Will as a divine gift.

  Have a good night.

  Burn
• 

  VoidEater

  Hi Blue: When I am most awake I remember. But waking up is hard some days, and staying awake can be difficult. You inspire me, though I don't know I always can drink the inspiration fully.

  The bottom line from what I hear you saying is, Of course God doesn't reckon into it - we do these things ourselves.

  Hello BurnTheShips: A very nice summary of some arguments.

  The response is that free will is what makes us valuable moral agents...

  I'm not sure, though, what realm our coinage has value in. Would this be in a scenario where our souls are claimed by one side or the other?

  ...a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theater with a "Cosmic Tyrant".

  I'm not sure who this is better for, who the audience is.

  There is also the point of view that God is so far superior to man, that he cannot be judged by man... Man's assumption that he can tell God what a benevolent and all-powerful god can or cannot do, is mere arrogance.

  Ipso facto, there is no morality man can usefully gain from God. Our contexts are too different.

  While these positions are interesting, they still seem to conclude that God has setup a place of suffering and is responsible for it.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  it would have to be humans

  Of course it has to be humans.

  Who else is going to do it for us?

  LOL!

  The idea is that instead of characterizing people that steal or prostitute themselves as "bad", an attempt should be made to attack the causes of stealing and prostitution.

  Naturalism isn't about making excuses for behavior but rather understanding it and seeking constructive ways to modify it. When a social or a personal problem is understood, solutions can be sought. The notion of free will often glosses over the root cause of a situation and tells the disadvantaged to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps". IMO.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  an attempt should be made to attack the causes of stealing and prostitution.

  I can agree with that.

  Burn
• 

  nvrgnbk

  I can agree with that.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The problem for me is that Naturalism is a mechanistic, materalist philosophy. I am a theistic dualist.

  Cheers.

  Burn