Do you prefer "free-will suffering"or "robots

[Jagella]

As we all should know, apologists often employ the "free-will" defense against any argument from suffering or evil that serves to cast doubt on the existence of the Christian god. Doubters might maintain that no good god would allow suffering. Since suffering exists, God probably doesn't exist. Apologists often counter telling us that God needs to allow suffering so that we may have free will to do evil as well as good.

Needless to say, there are several objections that might be raised to this apologetic, but I'd like to start out by pointing out that it makes an assumption that may not hold for all people. That assumption is that suffering and evil is universally preferred over our being robots programmed to do only good. Personally, I'd take the robots! My being programmed to do good is fine with me, and giving up my choice to do evil is a small price to pay to attain safety, security, and happiness. Besides, I have no desire to do evil. So my being programmed to do only good would make little difference for me.

Question for Debate: Do you prefer suffering or people being "robots"?

[Divine Insight]

Besides, I have no desire to do evil. So my being programmed to do only good would make little difference for me.

That's the bottom line for me right there.

If having no desire to do evil makes me a robot, then a robot I most certainly am already. God or no God.

So these theological arguments simply don't hold any water.

In fact, apologists who claim that these arguments do hold water must necessarily desire to do evil. Otherwise who are they kidding?

So the only apologists who can stand by this apologetic argument are necessarily apologists who actually desire to do evil things.

If they have no desire to do evil things, then they would need to confess to being a "robot" like me.

[Jagella]

In fact, apologists who claim that these arguments do hold water must necessarily desire to do evil. Otherwise who are they kidding?

So the only apologists who can stand by this apologetic argument are necessarily apologists who actually desire to do evil things.

Either apologists desire to do evil, or they think that others love to do evil. Christianity teaches that we are all evil wretches, so Christians believe we are predisposed to wickedness regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

If they have no desire to do evil things, then they would need to confess to being a "robot" like me.

If an apologist was facing a firing squad, would he thank God that that squad was not a bunch of robots programmed to never shoot anybody?

[Divine Insight]

Either apologists desire to do evil, or they think that others love to do evil.

Thinking that others love to do evil doesn't work. In Christianity the Christian him or herself needs to desire to do evil.

Christianity teaches that we are all evil wretches, so Christians believe we are predisposed to wickedness regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

That's the point right there. Christianity teaches that we are ALL evil wretches.

Therefore it doesn't do a Christian any good to think that other people love to do evil. They must necessarily be included with all humans who desire to do evil.

Therefore it's actually impossible (or a grave contradiction) for anyone who doesn't desire to do evil to be a Christian. Because if they don't desire to do evil, then they have violated the very premise of the theology.

So it only makes sense for people who desire to do evil to become Christians.

If any Christian tells you that they don't desire to do evil, then they have just violated the very premise of the religion they claim to believe in.

And this is actually the greatest contradiction of this entire theology.

Only genuinely evil people can be a Christian. There is absolutely no valid reason for any decent person to believe in the religion. A decent person believing in Christianity would be an oxymoron.

All Christians must therefore necessarily be evil people in their hearts. Without exception. If they don't desire to do evil they are in violation of the very premise of the theology they claim to believe in.

[bjs]

[Replying to Jagella]

To be clear, the free will defense has nothing to do with preference. It is not about people wanting or not wanting to be free. The free will defense is that it is morally better for people to be free since that gives us the capacity to be good people.

If the goal is happiness then free will would seem like a terrible idea. If the goal is goodness then free will is an absolute necessity.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Doubters might maintain that no good god would allow suffering.

I think that this ties in with the "Problem of evil" argument...

Personally, I'd take the robots! My being programmed to do good is fine with me, and giving up my choice to do evil is a small price to pay to attain safety, security, and happiness. Besides, I have no desire to do evil. So my being programmed to do only good would make little difference for me.

One has to ask one, WHY would one want to be a robot, if in ones own estimate one is a human with emotions and one is 'good' anyway?

Do you prefer suffering or people being "robots"?

Are you meaning biological robots?

Humans without will to do 'evil' or 'good' and also without the ability to feel and thus experience suffering?

I think it is largely emotions which are dictating ones preferences ordinarily. Being robots who do not experience suffering would be the same as being emotionless, would it not?

Without emotions, who would even deem anything 'good' or 'evil'?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to Jagella]

To be clear, the free will defense has nothing to do with preference. It is not about people wanting or not wanting to be free. The free will defense is that it is morally better for people to be free since that gives us the capacity to be good people.

If the goal is happiness then free will would seem like a terrible idea. If the goal is goodness then free will is an absolute necessity.

But according to Christianity no human can choose to be good via their own free will choice anyway. If that were the case there would be no need for Jesus to have been crucified on their behalf as their penal substitute.

So this idea that free will somehow supports Christianity is nonsense. In Christianity humans aren't even permitted to be able to choose good over evil. That's totally taboo. If they were able to do that then they wouldn't need Jesus.

Christians need Jesus precisely to turn them into robots who will behave good because they can't choose to behave good via their own free will.

So free will doesn't help Christianity one iota.

[Jagella]

To be clear, the free will defense has nothing to do with preference. It is not about people wanting or not wanting to be free. The free will defense is that it is morally better for people to be free since that gives us the capacity to be good people.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic. If we have "free will," then we can choose what we prefer. So free will has everything to do with preference. Besides, I see no reason why we cannot be programmed to be good. Whether we choose to be good or the great programmer in the sky chooses that we be good, we are good either way.

Also, you may misunderstand the question for debate. I'm not asking about your preferences to be good but your preference for what kind of world you'd like to live in. Even if you were right that we could not be truly good if programmed to be so, I'd still take a happy, secure, and safe world over a world in which a person freely wills to cut my throat!

If the goal is happiness then free will would seem like a terrible idea. If the goal is goodness then free will is an absolute necessity.

I see no reason why goodness and happiness must be mutually exclusive. I see them compliment each other all the time.

In summary, it is easy to punch holes into the free-will apologetic. It is an argument that fails miserably.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]


This is a rich subject and there are many aspects to consider. My first thought is that the argument that free will is necessary isn't an argument from the bible, but rather one built external from the bible in an attempt to resolve the problem of suffering.


The bible, both old and new testaments, presents a sovereign God who is in control of everything. And yes, I am aware of the apologetic that a God such as this could choose to not be in control of everything. Setting aside the logical problems this concept creates, once again, this is not an argument the bible makes.


For me, the most obvious problem with the theological idea of free will, is that the paradise most Christians claim believers will at some point experience, includes a total inability to do wrong. So the argument is that it would be really bad to be robots until some become robots in heaven, then it'll be really great.


So, for those Christians who believe in heaven, believe that include a sinless existence, and believe that will be paradise, their only logical response would be to select "robots" in this poll.



Tcg

[Mithrae]

To be clear, the free will defense has nothing to do with preference. It is not about people wanting or not wanting to be free. The free will defense is that it is morally better for people to be free since that gives us the capacity to be good people.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic. If we have "free will," then we can choose what we prefer. So free will has everything to do with preference. Besides, I see no reason why we cannot be programmed to be good. Whether we choose to be good or the great programmer in the sky chooses that we be good, we are good either way.

I'm pretty sure that you are among those who has regularly advanced the argument that the goodness of someone driven by fear of a vengeful deity is inferior to the goodness of someone motivated by reason and compassion. Makes sense to me. But now it seems that you find it convenient to also argue that 'goodness' which derives not even from an evaluation of possible consequences ('fear') but is entirely forced and predetermined has equal or similar merit to freely chosen goodness! I don't see any moral value at all in an automaton regardless of how much it helps people - let alone how much it might help other automatons. Are these just arbitrary positions you advance on different occasions, or is there some coherent rationale behind them?