Swinburne concludes his argument by stating that (9) there is, in fact, evil, pain, and suffering in the world. From this final statement, Swinburne comes to the conclusion that (10) there is no God. In other words, if one follows these tenets logically, there is no choice but to accept that God could not exist. If he did, there could not be pain in the world such as we have now and have had historically.
The antitheodocist insists that the presence of evil in the world is proof that God does not exist. That no God would allow atrocities that we have come to accept in everyday life to exist. The theodicy of free will counters this argument on several grounds. This theodicy directly attacks the principle that assumes God would prevent any evil, pain, and suffering. Even though God is capable of intervening so that all suffering stops, does it logically follow from the previous tenets that he would do so? That is where the weakness in the Problem of Evil transpires, and that is where the theodicy of free will takes aim.
God creates free beings. In order to be free, these beings must be allowed to make choices. The choices they make could not be under the control of the creator or they would not be truly free. To the antitheodicist’s argument that free beings should not be able to hurt others, this theodicy maintains that along with free will, men must have responsibility. We must make choices that could have positive or negative consequences, thus assuming responsibility toward each other. If we were only able to help each other, we would have very limited responsibility and would not really have free will.
The antitheodicist may insist that responsibility in itself is not a bad thing, but we should not have the ability to do great harm to each other. This theodicy answers that extensive responsibility is a good thing, even at the expense of some existence of evil. It is through this responsibility that we learn to make the right choices and to turn away from evil. To the antitheodicist’s argument that if God were good, he would put a limit to the pain, evil, and suffering in the world, this theodicy responds that God does precisely that. Who is to say what evil has been avoided by the intervention of God? This theodicy insists that the state of the world could be much worse were it not for the limitations God has placed on the world’s suffering.
Many would object to the free will theodicy by claiming that there is much pain that has been caused by natural occurrences having nothing to do with man’s will. Animals other than humans suffer. We witness floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues, and many other forms of pain and suffering in the world. The free will theodicy argues that man is responsible for many of these disasters due to his behavior and that there are other forces besides men in the world contributing to evil.
The free will theodicy is an argument chosen by many who have strong belief in the existence of God. It is an argument that is difficult to counter because it is so resilient. No matter what one conjectures, man is blamed for the problems in the world due to the free will with which God has endowed us. The endowment of free will to the point that man can inflict pain and suffering on others
The weaknesses in the argument, however, come when lines are drawn in the sand. The point that God does intervene when conditions get bad enough is a clear weakness in the theodict’s contention. This is a safety net for the theory that can never be proven. Does God have a scale on which he bases the degree of pain and suffering that will be tolerated? If so, how did he allow the concentration camps of Germany to exist? In the case of Nazi Germany, there was an evil perpretrator. Is he to blame for the millions who died? Was that not beyond God’s acceptable level? Often, we witness immense pain and suffering with no apparent culprit. How does he allow a jet to crash, killing all of the innocent people within it? This theory of God intervening to prevent the worst disasters is not believable to me.
When comparing the Problem of Evil with the free will theodicy, one must make a subjective choice. There is no clear winner here. Those who accept the existence of God could agree with the tenets that God is the greatest conceivable being, that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, but they could not agree with the tenet claiming that God would prevent any evil, pain, and suffering. They would reject the assumption, not that God could prevent such actions, but that he would. If that principle is accepted, one has to conclude that no God exists. Therefore, the believer stops at that argument and does not accept the final conclusion.
The free will theodicy is convincing for those who accept the existence of God because it provides them with a defense when nonbelievers question the benevolence of a God who would allow the pain and suffering the world has seen throughout history. This is a common accusation made by nonbelievers, so the believers in God have formulated a convincing argument here. The theodicy breaks down, not when pain is endured due to another person’s free will. It breaks down when there is no perpetrator and, yet, there is still suffering. Someone must take responsibility. If it is not a “free will agent,” it must be God.
I must conclude that neither of these arguments is likely to be the determining factor in a person’s acceptance of the existence of God. The arguments are more likely to be used as defenses of a position already held. I find the antitheodicist argument more convincing, but that is the position from which I entered the dialogue. I think that the use of logic in deciding one’s acceptance of God is questionable.
