God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. 121 pp)
A well-known American philosopher, Alvin Plantinga is the emeritus John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Born in 1932, Plantinga earned his B.A. from Calvin College and his Ph.D. from Yale University. Known for defending orthodox Christian beliefs by analytical philosophy, Plantinga has published numerous books including God and Other Minds, The Nature of Necessity, and Warranted Christian Belief. During his distinguished career, Plantinga received multiple honorary degrees and fellowships. In 1980, magazine named Plantinga "America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God."
The Problem of Evil
Suppose that God, as most Christians believe, is wholly
good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. Given this definition, God
ought to hate evil and possess the power to eradicate it from the universe. We
know, however, that evil does exist. Logically, therefore, we must conclude
that God does not exist.
This proof, known as the problem of evil, is logically
valid, meaning that its premises lead to its conclusion. In order to prove the
existence of God, then, one must prove the falseness surrounding any of the
argument’s premises. Without such proof, the conclusion, “God does not exist,”
stands.
Alvin Plantinga’s God,
Freedom, and Evil begins by deconstructing this well-known proof; it
ends with a reconstruction of a natural theological proof for the existence of
God.
Deconstructing the Problem of Evil
Plantinga commences by immediately evaluating the problem of
evil. He begins by simply questioning the soundness of the atheist’s set of
premises. Before I continue, it is important to pause for a second to explain
the use of “sound” and “valid”. When a philosopher proclaims a logical proof to
be valid, one merely professes that the conclusion proceeds from the set of
premises. Soundness, on the other hand, occurs when an argument is both valid
and true.
To illustrate, this argument is valid: All humans are 8 feet
tall; Andrew is a human; therefore, Andrew is 8 feet tall. While the conclusion
logically follows the premises, the argument is not sound because the premise,
“All humans are 8 feet tall” is not true.
Returning to God,
Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga ponders the premise, “God hates evil” in
problem of evil proof. He asks if God has a perfectly reasonable explanation
for allowing evil. If there were such an explanation, God would retain his
attributes, and, thus remain omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present – and
evil could continue to exist.
To this end, Plantinga proposes freedom. To summarize,
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so” (30).
If God grants free will to creatures, it logically follows
that each creature possesses the opportunity to choose good or evil. With this choice, then, evil
becomes allowable.
Of course, I admit that my synopsis is simplified. With
dense writing, Plantinga methodically waltzes from argument to argument
offering objections, rebuttals, and new proposals. In short, he argues that the
existence of free will as an added premise to the problem of evil creates an
invalid argument.
A Theological Argument
In the second section of God,
Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga explores the validity of theological
arguments for the existence of God. First, he explores medieval theologian
Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument finding it invalid rather quickly.
Second, and just as quickly, Plantinga rejects philosopher William Paley’s
teleological argument.
 |
| St. Anselm |
Much like the problem of evil, Plantinga explores the
various objections and counterarguments to the ontological argument.
Ultimately, Plantinga is unable to conclusively prove God’s existence, but he
can prove enough to say that theism is a valid intellectual position.
“What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology” (112).
Is God All Omni?
Although I believe Plantinga successfully reasons his
positions in God, Freedom,
and Evil, I do not think he will convince anyone to switch sides. For an
atheist, Plantinga offers interesting critiques but no conclusive proof.
Likewise, Plantinga supplies the theist with solid lines of reasoning in the
universal debate around God’s existence.
I’m not even sure Plantinga’s arguments support a proof for
the God found in Scripture, however. Some theologians, in fact, would critique Plantinga's arguments by pointing to the Bible. They would argue that a careful reading of Scripture suggests
that God, while certainly knowing, powerful, and present, isn’t always omniscient,
omnipotent, and omni-present. In many scenarios, God expresses regret or reverses
course(take Hezekiah as an example when God decides to add years to the king’s
life).
In fact, these “omni” principles share more similarities
with ancient Greek philosophy than with Christian scripture.
Certainly, Plantinga argues his position well. But, I’m not
convinced that he is arguing for the Christian God. In reality, his argument is
for some super intelligent and powerful creative being. And certainly at the
core of Plantinga’s thought, his arguments are meant to support the rationality
of belief – a pursuit far different from proving that the God of Scripture
exists.
Nevertheless, God,
Freedom, and Evil is an important work in philosophy and theology. If
you are interested in the debate around God’s existence, you must read God, Freedom, and Evil.
Proof of God, in the theological sense, is of course a misnomer, a philosophical contrivance to avoid accepting our ignorance of such a reality. As a humanity, we have all been conditioned or indoctrinated, for all of history by 'theological' exegesis, particularly by those with their own religious claims and agendas, to accept that a literal proof of God is not possible for faith. And thus all discussion of evil and apologists 'theodicy' is contained within this self limiting intellectual paradigm and bubble of presumption, especially evident in the frictions between science and religion. It would now appear that all sides squabbling over the God question, religious, atheist and history itself have it wrong! That bubble could now burst at any time!
ReplyDeleteThe first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise and predefined experience, a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power to confirm divine will, command and covenant, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious claim testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation now exists. Nothing short of a religious revolution is getting under way. More info at http://www.energon.org.uk