The "free will" question is motivated by one particular reading of the Eden narrative (i.e. as relating a "fall" of man and the origin of sin and evil) which, while proposed already in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, is hardly the oldest or most natural reading of the story. The story rather emphasizes the experiential and intellectual immaturity of its protagonists; they are described as like children and they only gain an understanding of the difference between good and evil through their actions in the garden. So whether or not children have "free will", to what extent are they responsible for actions made in ignorance? Rather than describing a "fall" of man, I think it is more accurate to say that the story relates (in mythological terms) how man gained his sense of morality and mental abilities (thereby becoming fully "man"). As long as Adam and Eve were naive ignorant children, they had their needs provided for Yahweh Elohim and lived in his protective "home". Once they passed the threshold of experience and became emotionally and mentally adults (with there being no turning back to childish innocence), they must move away from their parental home, contend with the harsh realities of life, and provide for themselves. The story relates the etiological origin of process of growing up, how "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, becoming one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
The Problem of Evil, "Free Will" and Questions of Morality
by gubberningbody 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
The simplistic (and unscriptural) WT storyline presents quite a few logical problems, some of which are also found in other monotheisms.
Are "moral" standards (such as justice, righteousness, fairness) self-grounded (i.e. independent of God), or set up (created) by God? JWs and most monotheists would choose the second option. But that makes any moral statement or judgement about God nonsensical. "God is just" is just as meaningless as a tautology as "God is unfair" is as a contradiction in terms. Making the problem one of self-consistency only displaces the problem a little. Before God submits to any "law" of necessity or consistency he has to set it up first (and the "prooftexts" will be even harder to find for such an abstract assertion). Another problem is that "God's standards" are supposed to coincide with ours inasmuch as the alleged "explanation of evil" appeals to "common sense," yet "common sense" is immediately dismissed as invalid as soon as it questions God's morality (his ways are not our ways, etc.). We are in a completely circular argument which we can only follow indefinitely unless we break free from it.
Ironically, the latter possibility doesn't prove the existence of (real or apparent) "free will" within the system, but it does open the way for a relative experience of freedom out of it. Stepping out of the magic circle, or cutting the Gordian knot?
-
Spook
Good post Narkissos,
A huge problem for JW theology is answering the question of how Adam's offspring came to be imperfect?
It seems this is either genetic or else a relative position from Jehovah. If it is genetic, Jehovah is responsible for having created that on purpose instead of some other possible means of heredity. If it is just a spiritual situation of god's perspective, it would seem arbitrary to view the descendants in that way. This defeats the ransom if there is, in reality, nothing to attone for but a perspective.
If something "changed" in Adam and Eve, were they to exist, then this change either was a natural result or else a teleological choice by Jehovah. Neither of these can be reconciled with their theology.
-
Spook
Further, JW's don't often mention whether they believe God is fully rational. If he is fully rational, it is not easy to say why he would impose arbitrary limits upon himself.
-
Narkissos
Spook,
Imo the modern (and, again, unscriptural) JW concept of imperfection is definitely construed as genetic (in a pseudo-scientific way). A popular way of understanding it (as I recall) is, "Jehovah made his creation so well that even damaged it still works, although poorly."
The traditional understanding (not in the Genesis context itself, as Leolaia pointed out, but in late Judaism and early Christianity) is not imperfection but sin, i.e. a positive concept rather than a negative one -- something added rather than substracted. If one would look for a modern (hence anachronistic) illustration, a "virus" might come to mind; and indeed that would raise the question of its "creation". However throughout the history of Christian theology there have been consistent philosophical efforts to construe sin (and evil) as less-being, or even non-being in more recent times. But this too was usually understood according to a genetic paradigm (e.g. Augustine), at least down to 20th-century psychology which has opened other interpretive patterns for "creative theologians". ;-)
I don't think the WT has ever addressed the issue of God being "fully rational" or not (lol). If anything WT theology tends to center on the most "mythological" and least "philosophical" aspects of monotheistic tradition -- and of course the Bible is mostly rich in the former. But (echoing your previous remark on modern theist philosophers) I wonder if a "fully rational God" has ever been, or can ever become, the object of religious theism. Imo middle-ages scholasticism (which tended to a fully rational God in an Aristotelian way), which paved the way for later Deism, rationalised the "object" of popular worship rather than it made it rational (in the sense that people would have henceforth worshiped a fully rational God). Cf. Pascal, "God of Jesus Christ, not of philosophers and scholars.")
-
Spook
Narkissos,
God take on the positive/negative sin issue. The tradition here might differ from the content, IMO, but again I'm no theologian. The point being the unique theology of JW's in which humans were supposed to live forever on earth is not compatible with other things, ergo the internal contradictions.
Generally by "fully rational" philosophers are talking about things such as...
1...achieving the beings highest priority or else the optimal mix of non-maximizable priorities (not doing things unintentionally).
2...perhaps, not having mutually incompatible priorities
and stuff like that.
Accepting a less than fully rational God clears up many problems, as does accepting a less than all-powerful one, or one from whom good/evil are largely arbitrary extensions of His character.. Then we're sort of talking about a deistic non-physical alien, rather than the theist's God. It's only the "superlatives" which create so many problems for theistic philosophers.
Don't even get me started on how a being beyond time could possibly make decisions with respect to temporal alternatives!...
-
BurnTheShips
God is not omnipotent in effect. There are limitations.
BTS