The Challenge of Free Will: A Scholarly Treatise on Divine Responsibility and Human Agency

The Challenge of Free Will: A Scholarly Treatise on Divine Responsibility and Human Agency

Date: November 2024

Blog: https://divine-physics.williamwcollins.com

---

Abstract:

This treatise explores the philosophical and theological complexities surrounding free will, particularly in the context of arguments that attribute the existence of evil to God’s creation of free will. It addresses the question of divine responsibility versus human agency, evaluates logical fallacies often associated with these discussions, and seeks to clarify the nuanced relationship between a Creator’s omniscience and human choice. This analysis aims to uphold an intellectually honest discussion on free will, examining implications for moral responsibility and the role of divine goodness.

---

Introduction

The question of free will has been a central point of contention in theological and philosophical discussions for millennia. From Augustine to Aquinas, from Kant to modern-day existentialists, thinkers have grappled with the implications of free will in relation to divine omniscience and the existence of evil. These inquiries raise some of the most profound and challenging questions humanity faces: If God created free will, and free will allows for the possibility of evil, does God then bear ultimate responsibility for the existence of evil? This treatise seeks to dissect these questions, examining the logical structure of this argument and the layers of philosophical and theological discourse that surround it.

The problem of free will and divine responsibility intersects with core metaphysical concerns, such as causation, moral agency, and the nature of God. While the question is often framed simplistically, closer inspection reveals a tapestry of intricate questions—each a potential gateway to deeper understanding. This essay aims to explore these complexities through the perspectives of renowned thinkers, religious texts, and philosophical analysis.

The Core Argument: Free Will as a Cause of Evil

The assertion that "If God created free will, and free will is the reason evil exists, then God is 100% responsible for evil's existence," appears straightforward but rests on a few pivotal assumptions that demand scrutiny. It presupposes, for instance, that God's creation of free will directly correlates to an intent or responsibility for evil. Additionally, it implies that the potential for evil inherently outweighs the value of free will itself.

The crux of this argument hinges on two questions: Is creating a free will universe preferable to a determined one? And, Does allowing the potential for evil diminish the goodness of the Creator? These questions are foundational in any discourse about divine responsibility and have been explored by major figures in both philosophy and theology.

Premise of Divine Responsibility vs. Human Agency

The argument that blames God for the existence of evil due to His creation of free will assumes that creating the capacity for choice inherently equates to causing specific choices. This can be analogized by the relationship between a parent and a child. A parent who raises a child and provides them with the freedom to make their own decisions does not bear direct responsibility for every decision that child eventually makes. Similarly, God’s creation of free will does not entail causation of every action.

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues, the possibility of moral evil is a byproduct of meaningful freedom:

> “A world containing creatures who are sometimes 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.”

— Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil

The Christian philosopher Augustine also acknowledged this dilemma, yet he held that moral evil does not stem from God but from the misuse of human freedom:

> “Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name ‘evil.’”

— Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love

For Augustine, evil is not a substance or a direct creation but rather the absence or corruption of good—a deviation that occurs within the scope of human freedom.

Logical Fallacies in the Argument

The statement, “If God created free will, then God is responsible for evil,” contains a fallacy of equivocation by conflating responsibility with causation. God’s act of enabling free will is not equivalent to desiring or causing every possible outcome of that freedom. Another fallacy present in the argument is causal determinism, implying that if God creates conditions under which evil can occur, He must necessarily be the cause of evil acts. However, this oversimplifies the nature of free agency, where each moral agent is responsible for their actions.

As Kant suggests, true moral autonomy is rooted in freedom, which enables individuals to act according to principles rather than compulsion:

> “Immaturity is the incapacity to use one’s intelligence without the guidance of another… Sapere aude! ‘Have courage to use your own understanding’—that is the motto of enlightenment.”

— Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment?

Kant’s idea implies that maturity and moral autonomy require freedom, even though that freedom includes the risk of making poor or even harmful choices.

The Value of Free Will: Love, Virtue, and Moral Goodness

One of the central arguments for free will is its role in enabling authentic love and moral goodness. Without freedom, virtues like love, courage, and justice lose their meaning, becoming automated behaviors rather than authentic expressions of moral character. Love, to be genuine, must be freely chosen; similarly, acts of courage, charity, and justice derive their worth from the sacrifices and choices involved.

In the Christian context, C.S. Lewis argues that free will is not just a functional aspect of human existence but a profound gift:

> “Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”

— C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Free will allows humans to embody higher virtues and reflect aspects of the divine nature, yet this possibility does not negate the risks that accompany it.

Theodicy and the “Greater Good” Argument

To understand why a benevolent God would permit free will even with the risk of evil, we must examine theodicy—the justification of God’s goodness in the face of evil’s existence. One approach to this is the “greater good” argument, which posits that the potential for evil is a necessary byproduct of a world where moral virtues can genuinely manifest.

The “greater good” perspective contends that the potential for moral failure is inherent in the gift of moral freedom. By creating beings with the power to make free choices, God allows for a reality where actions hold significance. This echoes the views of Leibniz, who posited that our universe, despite its flaws, is the “best of all possible worlds” because it allows for moral growth and the possibility of redemption:

> “The best course of action for the universe… would be one that is most rich in the phenomena and laws best fitted to enable created spirits to reach perfection.”

— Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Essays on Theodicy

This framework suggests that the presence of evil does not contradict God’s goodness but rather demonstrates the depth of His commitment to human agency.

Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom

A common objection arises from the nature of divine foreknowledge: If God knows all future actions, how can those actions be free? However, foreknowledge does not equate to causation. Knowing an outcome in advance does not imply causing it. For instance, predicting a friend’s decision based on familiarity with their character doesn’t make the predictor responsible for that choice.

Boethius, in his work The Consolation of Philosophy, provides an insight into reconciling foreknowledge with free will. He proposes that God’s knowledge is not bound by time, thus experiencing all events as a simultaneous present:

> “For God has an eternal and present knowledge of all things and this present knowledge views as ever now all events which are in time.”

— Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy

This concept suggests that God’s knowledge exists outside the constraints of temporal sequence, allowing Him to foresee without necessitating deterministic causality.

Free Will as a Foundation of Human Dignity

Philosophically and theologically, free will is closely connected to human dignity and moral growth. By allowing humans the capacity to choose, God affirms their agency and potential for self-determined moral development. In a deterministic framework, humans become mere instruments without true agency. With free will, however, humans can engage in meaningful relationships, make sacrifices, and embrace authentic virtues.

In this light, free will provides the basis for a just system of reward and punishment, as each person is accountable for their actions. Without free will, concepts such as justice, forgiveness, and redemption lose their coherence, as individuals would have no true control over their actions.

As Aquinas argued:

> “Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”

— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Conclusion: Free Will as a Path to Human Flourishing

In summary, the argument that “If God created free will, then God is responsible for evil” fails to capture the depth and purpose of free will. God’s creation of free will does not entail direct responsibility for the actions of free agents. Instead, it establishes a world where love, virtue, and moral growth are possible. Free will is not a flaw but a fundamental feature of a world where moral agency is real, where humans shape their own destinies, and where good and evil reflect individual choices rather than divine imposition.

The presence of evil, rather than undermining the value of free will, reinforces the need for it, as it allows individuals to pursue