Freewill defense is a prominent position against the question of moral evil, which tries challenge the existence of God due to evil happenings in the world. In response to these questions, theistic viewpoints use free will as a tool to defend the authority of God (Campbell 13). The proponents here say that evil exist due to free will endowed to the human person by God. The human person abuses the freedom that God gave to do evil. For theistic argument to defend their position successfully, they should prove the authority of God does not instigate moral evil. The moral argument stands strong in its position that the answer of free will cannot refute. Questions posed herein need more elaborate understanding to account for the existence evil and human suffering. Candidly, free will alone cannot answer the questions of moral evil in the world.
Furthermore, atheists employ the moral evil standpoints to reject the goodness and authority of God, by raising syllogistic arguments in the following ways (Campbell 13). God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and has the authority to eliminate everything in the phase of the world (first premise). God is all-loving (benevolent) and care for his creation. Due to his love for the human person, he cannot allow humanity to suffer consequences of evil (second premise). God is all knowing (omniscient) and is fully aware of evil and suffering in the world (third premise). If God is powerful, he would remove evil out of the world, if he were all-loving, he would not allow humanity to suffer, and if he is all knowing, then he is aware of evil suffering in the world. Evil exist in the world (objection), therefore God does not exist (conclusion). This syllogistically implies that God does not exist and the claims of his powerful attributes are refuted.
In human interactions, there are various rules that direct and control how human being establishes existence. The laws are divided into two (moral and natural laws), which are finely distinctive in their application to human life. For instance, moral law is an innate wisdom, which informs the human person about the actions that distort the good relationship between people and God. Natural laws on the other hand, are human-made and control the interaction between one individual and another. In retrospect, when moral laws concern the relationship between human beings and God, Natural laws are made by people and can be violated at will depending on the ability to dominate the decision when questioning the position taken.
Besides, free will continues to rely on the distinction between these laws to explain why evil exists world (Campbell 13). The supports of this law maintain that the freedom given to man by god is the reason for wrong doings. In further justification, God created human being a free person to manipulate the universe for the general good. The human person has the authority and dominion of the world and entrusted to uphold this dignity. In addition, God endowed human being with intellect to decide what is wrong and bad. Therefore, the action of doing bad is human and does not concern God’s power and position. In more defense, the literal understanding of God makes people to charge God for what is not real. For example, the understanding of the natural law of science outlines physical laws, biological laws, and chemical laws, and violation of such law has consequences attached. For example, the physical law of gravity asserts that every moving object is kept in motion by the gravitational balance by maintaining the center of gravity (C.o.G), which can be affected by factors such as over speeding. If the object moves at a higher speed that the body weight cannot contain then it topples off. This is what people call accident; therefore, it is wrong to believe that God punished someone through accident or God did not care for the people involved in the accident. Moreover, evil is unfortunate consequence of human frailty, which hails from the desires of the heart while trying to ponder through a problem in the mind. In such mental wonder, there would only be two options, either generating good answers or bad ones, leading to the wrongdoing if the bad answer dominates. In general, evil is due to human freedom of choice, action, and thought.
In the same dictum, it is better to live in a free world and do bad than to live in unfree world and do good. An individual constrained of thought and action is never happy and lacks self-satisfaction. For instance, the analogy of the cave by Plato tells how the world with confinement becomes dangerous both to the person living in that world and other people living with him or her (Far et al. 8). Goodness forced is obligatory and forces an individual to do good not because he or she knows it is noble, but because the condition is tight for him or her to be that way. Every human being deserves maximum freedom to generate inner dynamism and ability to makes life sensible.
Mackie uses deductive reasoning to disapprove God’s existence putting to question the omnipotence attribute of God. He argues that if God is omnipotent, then he has power to eliminate evil in the world (Howard 11). If he is omnipresent, he should protect and remove human suffering from the face of the world. If he is omniscience, then he is aware of the evil in the world, and finally, if he is benevolent then he does not will evil either. This argument father goes further to pose the following questions. “Is God willing to take evil from the world but unable to do so?” or is he able but unwilling? Alternatively, is he unwilling and unable to take evil away from the world? All these questions are the tools atheists use to refute the claim about existence of God.
These objections are justifiable in the realm of scientific mindset, but wrong in the religious demesne (Campbell 13). Using scientific question to get an answer to a religious discipline would confuse and lead the person to more confusion. Scientific method of analysis uses empirical justification, which would only apply within the discipline of science. Understanding the presence of God is a question of belief, since he is experienced not felt. Furthermore, reading a religious book with a scientific feeling is so dangerous and would make people like Mackie to realize more problems, hence create blames where not due. Inspecting a religious behavior to get a scientific response is wrong. It totally undermines the concept of free will by putting it into tests that are out of its scope.
In addition, poor interpretation of the religious text is the main reason why the number of atheists grows in the world. Some people read these texts and try to represent them as historical texts for that matter. In this respect, the information appears more abstract, and confusing. For example, the act of contrasting the story about the origin of man and Darwin’s theory is injustice, since evolution is a scientific- historical information, which cannot fetch full bearing from a faith- based argument. Therefore, these fields should just relate but one should not answer questions from the perspective of the other.
In conclusion, using freewill to answer the question of problem of evil can never be successful, since the problem is a question of science while the response is an answer of faith. God is met at the whims of faith, and proving his existence from the natural phenomena is wrong. God created human being with freewill, action and thought, and due to his frailty, human person can fall short of any of the three. This does not mean that the authority of God has to get a test for the same. Matters of science must seek answers using scientific methods while those of religion must also handle issues from the faith-based realm. Therefore, experts and scholars should use the best investigative methods when investigating matters from different fields, to avoid the clash of interests that arise from the misrepresentation of the texts in such areas. In addition, not every individual trying to get information about something must enter into it with his or her presuppositions. All the pre-understandings and prejudices do injustice to the subject under investigation.
Works cited
Campbell, Charles Arthur. In defence of free will: with other philosophical essays. Routledge,
2013.
Far, Johann, et al. "Is the natural shape of ions in the gas phase spherical? The allegory of
the Cave (Plato) applied in mass spectrometry." (2015).
Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "The logical problem of evil: Mackie and Plantinga." (2013).
