Skip to main content

Contrarian Philosophy of Religion Friday

If lacking the ability to do wrong thereby makes a person a robot, then the God of classical theism is thereby a robot. But if the lack of ability to do wrong does not thereby make a person a robot, then finite creaturely agents who lack such an ability are not thereby rendered robots.


Kaspian said…

I have two remarks. First, is the "lack of ability to do wrong" meant as "metaphysical impossibility to do wrong"? That would exclude not only libertarian but also compatibilist freedom in this respect.
Second, I think that the problem lies not with being able or unable to do wrong, but with being subject to moral evaluation in general. If God is not able to do wrong in the sense that it is metaphysically impossible for God to do wrong, then moral vocabulary does not apply to God. What follows is that being a person is not essentially connected to being subject to moral evaluation.

All the best,
Kaspian said…
A follow-up comment: You assertion seems to be the perfect starting point for developing a version of the argument from evil.

1. What needs to be proved, I think, is that it would be possible for God to create persons which (metaphysically) cannot do what is wrong (perhaps this ability goes hand in hand with being created).

2. The world without persons who can do what is wrong would not be a *morally* perfect world, however, it could be perfect in some other sense (perhaps in the sense that everybody in this world would enjoy the communion with God). Let's call this soteriological perfection.

3. One would have to prove then that is God can actualize the soteriologically perfect world then God does actualize it.
Perhaps appeal to a distinction between Creator and creature here?

Perhaps only a Trinitarian conception of God can account for something like a real choice of loving surrender in the Godhead making the Persons of the Trinity pass the test of being non-robotic in an analagous way to humans yet divinely distinct (via analogia entis)?

(It's amusing to note that this website requires me to click a box that says 'I am not a robot' in order to post this comment!)

Popular posts from this blog

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…