Skip to main content

New Papers on Plantinga's Free Will Defense...

...in the newest issue of IJPoR:

Abstract
Otte (165–177, 2009) and Pruss (400–415, 2012) have produced counterexamples to Plantinga’s famous free will defence against the logical version of the problem of evil. The target of this criticism is the possibility of universal transworld depravity, which is crucial to Plantinga’s defence. In this paper, we argue that there is a simpler and more plausible free will defence that does not require the possibility of universal transworld depravity or the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. We assume only that libertarianism is possibly true and that God’s existence is consistent with the existence of free agents who never go wrong. We conclude the paper by explaining how our defence may be able to succeed without assuming , in a way that is consistent with compatibilism.


Abstract
This paper argues against the sufficiency of Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense, as presented in God, freedom, and evil as a response to the logical problem of evil. I begin by introducing the fundamental issues present in the problem of evil and proceed to present Plantinga’s response. Next, I argue that, despite the argument’s wide acceptance in the field, a central notion to the defense, transworld depravity, is internally inconsistent and that attempts to resolve the problem would result in an abandonment of the original terms of the discussion. Finally, I consider some potential alternatives for a free will defense beyond the one presented by Plantinga and conclude that the logical problem of evil may have more worth as a philosophical topic than has been thought in recent years.

And if I should find a copy of these in my inbox...
UPDATE: Many thanks!

Comments

Rayndeon said…
The upshot of the first paper is pretty simple - given alternative possibilities, if a subject is free with respect to some action A, then there is a possible world identical up to the time of the choice where the agent performs A and another possible world identical up to the time of the choice where they perform ~A.

So, God can create saintly agents in that they never go wrong, although apparently he can't make transworldy saintly agents such that can't go wrong. So, suppose God makes a saintly agent such that it goes right with respect to A at time t - it does A. Then, there is another world identical up to the time of the choice such that the agent does ~A and hence goes wrong with respect to A. Since it's identical up to the time of the choice, it includes God's existence, so God's existence and the existence of moral evil are compatible.

I'm surprised the authors don't seem to be aware of Mike Almeida's work in this domain, where he has basically the same sort of idea in "Freedom, God, and Worlds" or in his recent Midwest Studies paper "The Logical Problem of Evil Regained." Roughly speaking, along similar lines, Almeida argues that it is impossible that necessarily God actualizes a morally perfect world (although he agrees that necessarily God can actualize one>, since if necessarily God actualizes a morally perfect world, no agent displays significant freedom with respect to their actions. Almeida then connects with his work in Freedom, God, and Worlds to argue that gratuitous evil is compatible with God's existence. But, as Peter Forrest noted in his NDPR review, this practically evacuates God's goodness as any kind of substantive notion, as it is compatible with anything whatsoever. So, perhaps Almeida (and by extension, Bernstein and Helm) have put forward a powerful defense against the PoE, but it may well be too powerful. See Almeida's own brief thoughts on the issue here: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2015/03/17/a-theistic-dilemma/

I'll try to write up some additional worries I have for the first paper later.
Rayndeon said…
In addition, I'm not sure how this defense ties up with broader worries about the connection between alternative possibilities, God's freedom, and God's value. Presumably, God never goes wrong with respect to any action - but does this threaten his freedom or does it not? If it does threaten this freedom, then what is supposed to be the value of God creating free agents, when the being of ultimate metaphysical value himself lacks it? If on the other hand that it does not threaten it (one might try to motivate this with broadly source incompatibilist concerns which typically deny the Principle of Alternative Possibilities), then there's nothing incompatible with freedom and God necessarily creating saintly agents. Pruss has a paper on this issue, but I didn't find it too convincing.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…