The Free Will Defense is a theodicy, that is, a philosophical argument that seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. It was famously proposed by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga as a response to the problem of evil. In this essay, we will explore the Free Will Defense in detail, examining its main arguments and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses.
As is well known, the problem of evil poses a challenge to theistic belief systems. It questions how the existence of evil and suffering in the world can be reconciled with the belief in an all-loving and all-powerful God. If God is all-powerful, why does He not prevent evil? If God is all-loving, why does He allow suffering to occur? The Free Will Defense attempts to address these questions by highlighting the role of human free will in the presence of evil.
The Free Will Defense asserts that God, in His perfect wisdom, granted human beings the gift of free will. According to this view, God created humans with the capacity to choose between good and evil. Free will is a fundamental aspect of human nature and a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Without the ability to choose, humans would be mere automatons, lacking genuine moral agency.
Plantinga’s Free Will Defense contends that in order for free will to be meaningful, it must include the possibility of choosing evil. If humans were only capable of choosing good, their actions would be predetermined and lacking in genuine moral significance. Therefore, God, in His desire for authentic relationships with His creatures, had to allow the possibility of evil.
The Free Will Defense suggests that evil and suffering in the world are the result of the abuse or misuse of free will by humans and other moral agents. God did not directly cause evil; rather, it is a consequence of the choices made by free creatures. From this perspective, evil is not an inherent flaw in God’s creation but a byproduct of the existence of free will.
Plantinga’s defense further argues that God could not create a world with free creatures who always choose the good. If God were to determine human choices or intervene every time evil was about to occur, it would undermine the concept of free will. The ability to freely choose between good and evil necessarily entails the possibility of choosing evil. Therefore, a world with genuine free will must also have the potential for evil.
Moreover, the Free Will Defense posits that the existence of evil can lead to greater goods. It suggests that through the experience of evil and suffering, individuals can develop virtues such as courage, compassion, and resilience. Adversity can strengthen moral character and foster personal growth. In this sense, the presence of evil can contribute to the overall moral development and refinement of human beings.
Critics of the Free Will Defense raise several objections. One common criticism is the existence of natural evil, which includes disasters, diseases, and other forms of suffering that are not directly caused by human actions. These critics argue that natural evil cannot be attributed to human free will and, therefore, poses a challenge to the Free Will Defense. In response, defenders of the Free Will Defense contend that while natural evil may not be directly caused by human actions, it can be seen as a consequence of the overall structure and functioning of the natural world. The laws of nature, which allow for the regularity and predictability necessary for human life, may also lead to the occurrence of natural disasters and diseases.
Another objection to the Free Will Defense is the question of whether the presence of free will is compatible with an all-knowing God. If God is omniscient, it is argued, He would already know all the choices that individuals will make, thereby undermining the notion of genuine freedom. In response, defenders of the Free Will Defense propose that divine foreknowledge does not negate human free will. They argue that God’s knowledge of future choices does not causally determine those choices. God’s omniscience does not interfere with the freedom of human decisions; rather, it is a reflection of His eternal and unchanging nature.
Additionally, some critics argue that the Free Will Defense does not adequately address the scale and intensity of evil and suffering in the world. They contend that the existence of extreme suffering, such as genocide or natural disasters that claim numerous innocent lives, cannot be justified by appealing to free will alone. In response, defenders of the Free Will Defense suggest that while certain instances of suffering may be difficult to comprehend or justify, the overall moral significance of free will and its potential for greater goods still provide a framework for understanding the existence of evil.
Despite these objections, the Free Will Defense continues to be a significant theistic response to the problem of evil. It offers a coherent and consistent explanation for the presence of evil in a world created by an all-powerful and all-loving God. By highlighting the significance of human free will, the Free Will Defense provides a framework that allows for moral agency, personal growth, and the possibility of meaningful relationships with God and others.
In conclusion, the Free Will Defense, proposed by Alvin Plantinga, seeks to reconcile the existence of evil with the belief in an all-powerful and all-loving God. It argues that the presence of evil is a necessary consequence of the gift of free will bestowed upon human beings by God. According to this defense, evil arises from the misuse or abuse of free will, and it is not a direct result of God’s actions. The Free Will Defense contends that a world with genuine free will must also entail the potential for evil. Furthermore, it suggests that the experience of evil and suffering can lead to personal growth and the development of virtues. While the Free Will Defense faces objections, it remains a significant and influential theistic response to the problem of evil, contributing to the ongoing philosophical discussion surrounding this complex issue.