I am surprised that PVI thinks that the free-will approach is the best given what we know about human belief tendencies on this planet. The ideal for a free choice, as pretty much all libertarians and compatibilists admit, is a choice in which the alternatives and the outcomes of choosing them are known. The natural bent of the human mind is towards polytheism or some kind of animism. Indeed, most people have adopted this type of view historically speaking.
Belief in an afterlife of the heaven and hell variety is also a latecomer historically speaking. Hence, the idea that God designed a world in which freedom of choice to love God or not is maximized is empirically false in my view.
It is easy to picture a world in which the suffering is random from the human perspective and yet people know that God has set things up this way so that we can see what life apart from God entails. This is clearly not that world.
1 comment:
I am surprised that PVI thinks that the free-will approach is the best given what we know about human belief tendencies on this planet. The ideal for a free choice, as pretty much all libertarians and compatibilists admit, is a choice in which the alternatives and the outcomes of choosing them are known. The natural bent of the human mind is towards polytheism or some kind of animism. Indeed, most people have adopted this type of view historically speaking.
Belief in an afterlife of the heaven and hell variety is also a latecomer historically speaking. Hence, the idea that God designed a world in which freedom of choice to love God or not is maximized is empirically false in my view.
It is easy to picture a world in which the suffering is random from the human perspective and yet people know that God has set things up this way so that we can see what life apart from God entails. This is clearly not that world.
Post a Comment