The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism
The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism
The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Lecture 5<br />
<strong>The</strong> Global Argument Continued<br />
I said that I would begin this lecture with a discussion <strong>of</strong> some problems<br />
involving free will.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first <strong>of</strong> the three problems I shall consider arises from the<br />
contention that free will is compatible with strict causal determinism:<br />
that is, with the thesis that the past and the laws <strong>of</strong> nature together<br />
determine a unique future. Many philosophers—Hobbes, Hume, and<br />
Mill are the most illustrious representatives <strong>of</strong> their school—have held<br />
that free will and determinism are perfectly compatible: that there could<br />
be a world in which at every moment the past determined a unique<br />
future and whose inhabitants were nonetheless free beings. 1 Now if<br />
this school <strong>of</strong> philosophers is right, the free-will defense fails, for if free<br />
will and determinism are compatible, then an omnipotent being can,<br />
contrary to a central thesis <strong>of</strong> the free-will defense, create a person who<br />
has a free choice between x and yandensure that that person choose x<br />
rather than y. Those philosophers who accept the compatibility <strong>of</strong> free<br />
will and determinism defend their thesis as follows: being free is being<br />
free to do what one wants to do. Prisoners in a jail, for example, are<br />
unfree because they want to leave and can’t. <strong>The</strong> man who desperately<br />
wants to stop smoking but can’t is unfree for the same reason—even<br />
though no barrier as literal as the bars <strong>of</strong> a cell stands between him and<br />
a life without nicotine. <strong>The</strong> very words ‘free will’ testify to the rightness<br />
<strong>of</strong> this analysis, for one’s will is simply what one wants, and a free will<br />
is just exactly an unimpeded will. Given this account <strong>of</strong> free will, a<br />
Creator who wants to give me a free choice between x and y has only to<br />
arrange the components <strong>of</strong> my body and my environment in such a way<br />
that the following two ‘if’ statements are both true: if Iweretowantx,<br />
I’dbeabletoachievethatdesire,andif Iweretowanty, I’dbeable<br />
to achieve that desire. And a Creator who wants to ensure that I choose<br />
x, rather than y, has only to implant in me a fairly robust desire for x<br />
and see to it that I have no desire at all for y. And these two things are<br />
obviously compatible. Suppose, for example, that there was a Creator<br />
who had put a woman in a garden and had commanded her not to eat