Critiquing: #021 — Free Will and the Problem of Evil
September 11, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Free will — Problem of evil — Theodicy — Divine goodness — Human suffering
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——— | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B | The episode is largely accurate, though some theological interpretations are debatable. |
| Degree of Coherence | B+ | Logical coherence is maintained, with clear arguments and responses to complex questions. |
| Absence of Fallacies | B- | Few logical fallacies are present, though some arguments rely on theological assumptions. |
| Degree of Evidence | C+ | Evidence is mainly scriptural and theological, lacking empirical support. |
| Degree of Testability | C | Theological claims are inherently difficult to test empirically. |
| Rational Confidence | C+ | Confidence is moderate, as arguments are compelling but heavily reliant on faith-based premises. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Degree of Evidence
The episode relies heavily on scriptural and theological evidence, which may not be convincing for non-believers or those requiring empirical support. For instance, the claim that “evil is drawn to Jesus like a magnet” is primarily supported by biblical narratives rather than empirical data.
“As Jesus comes and says, it’s time for God to be king, follow me, and it’s going to happen. Then evil of all sorts seems to be drawn to him as though to a magnet.”
2. Degree of Testability
The arguments presented are largely based on theological premises, making them difficult to test empirically. For example, the notion that “God’s way of solving the problem of evil may not align with human understanding” is inherently untestable.
“There is a God, he is the good creator. There’s a real mess at the moment and he has got his own way of working to solve it, which won’t necessarily be the way that we might like, but that’s partly because we don’t understand his ways.”
3. Absence of Fallacies
While the episode generally avoids logical fallacies, some arguments assume the truth of Christian doctrine, which may be seen as circular reasoning by non-believers. The assertion that “Jesus’ victory over evil is definitive” presupposes the accuracy of the Christian narrative.
“The story that we tell is a story in which God himself has come in person to take the full force of all that evil onto himself.”
Major Arguments and Syllogistic Formulations
Argument 1: Free Will and the Existence of Evil
- Premise 1: God grants humans free will.
- Premise 2: Free will allows humans to choose between good and evil.
- Premise 3: The existence of evil is a consequence of humans exercising free will.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of a benevolent God who grants free will.
Counter-Argument:
The concept of free will does not adequately explain natural evils (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis) that cause suffering independent of human choice. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, he could create a world where free will exists without resulting in such widespread and indiscriminate suffering. The existence of natural evils challenges the notion that all suffering is a result of human free will and raises questions about the compatibility of an omnipotent, benevolent deity with the presence of seemingly unnecessary suffering in the world.
Argument 2: God’s Plan and Human Understanding
- Premise 1: God has a plan to address the problem of evil.
- Premise 2: God’s ways are beyond human understanding.
- Premise 3: Human inability to understand God’s ways does not negate the existence of God’s plan.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the presence of evil does not contradict the existence of a benevolent God with an incomprehensible plan.
Counter-Argument:
Asserting that God’s ways are beyond human understanding can be seen as an evasion rather than an explanation. If the existence of evil is used as evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity, simply stating that God’s plan is incomprehensible does not address the logical problem. This argument relies heavily on faith, which may not be convincing to those who seek a more rational or empirical explanation for the coexistence of a benevolent deity and pervasive suffering.
Argument 3: The Role of Jesus in Addressing Evil
- Premise 1: Jesus’ life and death represent God’s intervention in the problem of evil.
- Premise 2: Jesus’ suffering and sacrifice are meant to address and ultimately overcome evil.
- Premise 3: Believers are called to participate in Jesus’ mission to combat evil.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ life and teachings provide a framework for understanding and addressing the problem of evil.
Counter-Argument:
Theological interpretations of Jesus’ life and death are specific to Christian doctrine and may not provide a universal solution to the problem of evil. Additionally, the historical and empirical evidence for the effectiveness of Jesus’ intervention in addressing evil is limited. While this framework may offer comfort and guidance to believers, it may not satisfy those who seek solutions grounded in broader philosophical or empirical grounds.
In addition, the notion of an objective “evil” realm in which evil exists in a domain transcendent of mere emotional abhorrence needs to be substantiated.
◉ Addressing the Notion of Evil:
The Ontological Status of Evil Beyond Human Emotions
The concept of evil is often invoked to describe actions or events that evoke a profound sense of abhorrence. However, this notion of evil, which suggests a reality beyond mere emotional reactions, remains far from substantiated. Our emotions are directly experienced; we feel anger, fear, and disgust in response to certain stimuli. In contrast, we do not directly experience “evil” as an external, objective reality. This discrepancy invites us to scrutinize the assumption that evil exists independently of human emotions.
Human beings frequently attempt to reify their feelings of abhorrence, attributing them to a realm that transcends mere emotional responses. Yet, upon closer examination, the concept of “evil” dissipates into the very emotions from which it purportedly arises. This reification, the process of treating an abstract concept as if it were a tangible entity, fails to provide the necessary evidence for the independent existence of evil.
The realm of evil must be clearly substantiated and not merely assumed. Some apologists argue that the subjective sense of wrongness in the world is evidence of an objective evil. They claim that our innate sense of moral dissatisfaction points to the existence of a universal moral order. However, this perspective conflates subjective emotional experiences with objective reality. The feeling that “something is wrong with the world” is not evidence of an objective evil; it is merely a reflection of human emotions.
Morality and evil are often proposed as domains with inherent ontological legitimacy, yet the arguments supporting their existence are weak. Without rigorous evidence and robust logical frameworks, these domains remain constructs of human emotion and thought, rather than aspects of an independent reality. The pressure to invent such domains stems from our emotional need to make sense of our experiences, not from the discovery of objective truths.
In conclusion, the notion of evil as an entity beyond human emotions lacks substantiation. It is a construct born out of emotional responses, and its presumed existence must be rigorously examined. The subjective feelings of wrongness in the world are insufficient to prove the existence of an objective evil. As such, we must approach the concept of evil with critical scrutiny, recognizing it as a manifestation of human emotion rather than an independent reality.
We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s explore these ideas together and deepen our understanding of the nature of evil and morality.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment