Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Boyd on the Freedom of God to choose evil

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Vexen
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55

Posted 1/25/2002 2:55 AM (GMT -6)

The working assumption of this post is that open theology is true. That, officially, makes me a bit out of my depth, but I like to learn!! :-)

quote:
[I believe that God is the MOST FREE being because]...
the freedom FROM the necessity of making choices between good and evil is higher than the freedom TO

choose between good and evil? Isn't a person who has grown past the need to always choose (say) to be

faithful to his wife FARTHER ALONG the path of freedom than the one who must continually choose this?

There were objections on the original thread to this, saying how freedom FROM a choice can never mean

more freedom than freedom TO choose.

But I understand your argument, and will attempt to rephrase it:

That once you have chosen, with all your will, to do something every time you are offered the choice,

to no longer be offered the choice is the result of God excercising his free will never to

choose Evil, therefore he wont. That he is more able to choose something, once and for all, than any

other being, and in a way that most beings cannot do.

As normal beings cant seem to make these once-and-for-all decisions, God has more free will, and is

able to make high-level decisions that we cannot.

okay Doc... is that how it is?

Before I go and embarass myself and raise an issue or two, I want to say that I'm not _entirely sure_

that this is what you mean... so I'm just proceeding on the assumption that I'm not too far off.

Re-wording my text may nullify my 2 issues/questions... but here they are nontheless!

#Issue One

It is God, by re-presenting the same choices to us, over and over, who denies us this ability in

the first place.

It seems that God is limiting our free will, what is the purpose? If beings (such as god) only need to deny evil once, then why are we continually presented with difficult choices? And why do some good natured choices result in evil, despite us trying our best?

It seems there is a Will_To_Evil in God's presentation to us, a persistence that overrides our free will, returning over and over, and even recurring when we consciously do not want to choose evil... why, in short, does God make it so hard to make the right choices, or to avoid the bad side effects of some good choices?

After death, do you believe we are presented with a "final choice", or do you think that even in Hell, or purgatory, or limbo, we can change our minds still?

Rephrase: If, in Heaven, we can no longer choose Evil, then it seems this is the result of our "final choice", and we have reached the same "level of freedom" as God, having made that choice. DO you believe that the "final choice" can be made towards evil? Do you believe anyone actually makes that choice; their character being hopelessly deluded by the misfortunes of life?

#Issue Two

God can change his mind, and it not predestined. It seems, therefore, that he cannot move further along this "ultimate decision" path, as it would contradict some of the premise of Open Theology (that God can change his mind), and this situation would not arise in the first place.

Although "further along", do you believe God could accidentally create or choose Evil, because he does not always know the full effects of Free Will, that there is an inbuilt incertainty, and thefefore God, although most-perfect, most-merciful, sometimes moves the "wrong way"?

*wonders if that makes sense*

--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk

sean_m
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17

Posted 1/25/2002 1:49 PM (GMT -6)

Well, I'm gonna offer my own two cents on these issues.

Issue #1
Your argument assumes God is the one presenting us with the evil constantly, something openness theology would deny. Also, I think the point of saving grace is that we are saved from our own choices, in a sense, and our own dilusion, but perhaps someone more theologically inclined can help me out here.

Issue 2:
Evil is always a deliberate moral choice, so I don't think there is anything accidental about it (if you accidentally kill someone, your penalized for it, but is it necessarily evil?)

I hope I've been helpful, in my limited way.

Sean

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/25/2002 3:04 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
here were objections on the original thread to this, saying how freedom FROM a choice can never mean

more freedom than freedom TO choose.

But I understand your argument, and will attempt to rephrase it:

That once you have chosen, with all your will, to do something every time you are offered the choice,

to no longer be offered the choice is the result of God excercising his free will never to

choose Evil, therefore he wont. That he is more able to choose something, once and for all, than any

other being, and in a way that most beings cannot do.

As normal beings cant seem to make these once-and-for-all decisions, God has more free will, and is

able to make high-level decisions that we cannot.
-----------------------------------------------------------

okay Doc... is that how it is?

Before I go and embarass myself and raise an issue or two, I want to say that I'm not _entirely sure_

that this is what you mean... so I'm just proceeding on the assumption that I'm not too far off.

Actually, Vexen, I don't think that's how it is exactly. As I'm reading your stuff, you are saying that it is God's STRENGTH OF WILL that powers the "freedom from" What I think Doc is saying is that, at the ultimate point, there is NO LONGER even a choice!

An example. Let's say that I really like chocolate, but for whatever reason, I want to quite eating it. Now, in the initial stages, I have to use active WILLPOWER to deter my eating of chocolate. Sometimes it's easier, other times its harder. Over time, hopefully, things will progress to the point that my active use of willpower not to eat chocolate will decrease incrementally AS IT BECOMES HABIT! Ideally, it will get to the point that I don't EVEN USE willpower to not eat chocolate. I just don't do it anymore. There's no craving or anything. It has become part of my habitual nature NOT to eat chocolate. In this context, the "freedom from" would be the LOWERED ANXIETY and INNER CONFLICT with regard to the choice. I know longer have the "freedom to" eat chocolate in the sense that, though it is technically a live option, I have so DETERMINED my habits that, practically speaking, I really no longer have the "freedom to" choose between eating chocolate and NOT eating it. I just don't...NATURALLY. I am free FROM the existential anxiety and inner conflict of having to choose between eating it and not eating it. For these reasons, some would say that it is BETTER to be "free from" choosing than "free TO" choose.

Now, taking this to God. Doc wants to say that God possesses this "freedom from" morally relevant choices because he just NATURALLY does good. There's no anxiety or inner conflict involved. Moreover, since Doc insists on making this part of God's ontology as a necessary being, God would HAVE to have been this way from the beginning. Whereas a contingent being would have to BECOME habitually determined, a necessary being would not have to do so. Therefore, Doc thinks it better than God is "free from" the possibility of choosing evil than being free to choose it.

See, Vexen, in saying that God has to choose good over evil EVEN ONCE, you are distinguishing yourself from Doc's view. Given the open view theist perspective qua Boyd, there would NEVER have been the context even for this INITIAL choice...and definitely no reason for any willpower to be used afterwards. So strength of will wouldn't matter.

Hope this helps.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/25/2002 3:16 PM (GMT -6)

Wait! BETTER example...and more apropos.

We have two persons (Bill and Ted) that are confronted with Moral Issue Y. Bill is a decent person who does the right thing often, but sometimes does not. Sometimes he makes selfish decisions. When Bill confronts Moral Issue Y, he goes through the process of moral deliberation. In other words, he actually CONSIDERS doing less than what he knows to be the right thing. After some deliberation, he decides to go ahead and do the right thing.

Ted, on the other hand, has cultivated a life where he HABITUALLY does altruistic things and always works for the good. It's become part of what makes Ted, Ted. When Ted is confronted with Moral Issue Y, he does the right thing WITHOUT EVEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT IT. He just does it out of his habitual nature.

Doc argues that we should view Ted's "freedom from" making morally relevant choices due to habituation as a very GOOD thing...much more than the freedom TO make moral decisions that Bill has. And he attributes this thought to God.

Yeah, THIS is the one!

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 1/25/2002 4:19 PM (GMT -6)

I know you don't agree with it, Meph, but you've definitely said it well.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

sean_m
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17

Posted 1/26/2002 3:54 PM (GMT -6)

Let me also try to work this idea out. The basic thesis is evil is less free than good. Now, what exactly is an evil act? Can an evil act go solely through evil means? I say no; everything originally created was good, and so evil had to come from those good things. Instantly, you see that evil is a corruption of the good freedom we have. Now, when we think about an evil act, we have to think about it in terms of perversion. If it were normal, in the sense that it were part of the design plan, how could we call it evil? Now, since evil is a corruption, it keeps corrupting (kinda like a drug addiction) until the person is incapable of knowing what good even is. If you need an example, look at slaves; most of them, though set free, bound themselves right back again to their masters. Now, in God's case, he technically is free to chose evil, but he values his freedom so much that he will never chose evil, kinda like a person who is free will never put himself in a torture chamber. However, we, in our current evil state, were not free before, so all we know is being bound in the torture chamber. When we are released, the torture chamber still calls us, and sometimes the free world doesn't seem to compare to the torture chamber, for it's all we know. In heaven, however, we will be completely freed of the torture chamber, and seeing it for what it is, will never go back. I hope this helps as well.

Sean

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/27/2002 3:09 AM (GMT -6)

In customary fashion, Meph articulated the view well.

The whole thing hangs on the distinction between a necessary and contingent being. A necessary being would not have to acquire his defining characteristics. A contingent being must. In contrast to Meph, I hold that God's moral character is one of his defining characteristics. Hence he didn't choose it. He IS it. Humans, however, must choose it, for we, by definition, could be otherwise (this is the meaning of contingency).

Blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 1/27/2002 5:51 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmm...

Just a thought. Wouldn't it be better to NOT consider moral character as a defining characteristic, but CAPACITY for morality? Think about this. In your view, it would not be possible for God to be morally free in ANY sense, because the moral character is determined. Basically, moral freedom would be forfeited.

In my view, it would be possible for God to be morally free, because what is ontologically grounded is moral capacity. But OMNIBENEVOLENCE is ALSO possible! This is what Sanders believes, isn't it? Just like Vexen was talking about, in my view, one could hold that by sheer acts of willing that follow from an INITIAL decision such that God decides to ALWAYS be "all-good"

I argue that my view may be more workable if ONLY for the fact that it can encompass both moral freedom AND omnibenevolence (if one wanted to).

What you think?

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/29/2002 11:47 AM (GMT -6)

I wonder why we think God HAS to be free to do evil/wrong/bad to be God? What if it simply isn't within the realm of God's existance to even have to deal with the issue of good/bad? What if He simply exists outside of this. He is only good when something calls for it. He wouldn't have to be evil for two reasons: nothing would call for Him to have be evil ("God, you need to be evil here"!); evil is a corruption of good. God can't be a corruption of anything. "God cannot sin" "God cannot lie" Trying to say that these are just things we won't do because He chooses not to isn't good enough. It isn't even the context of the passages where these are quoted. God isn't able to do evil simply because, I believe, He's not caught inside the vicious dual of good and evil. (I still think there's something to this, you know!)

Starkman

sean_m
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17

Posted 1/29/2002 2:01 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman-

I think I see the point you're trying to get at, but I think it just pushes the problem back instead of solving it. I mean, someone might object "So what if God is outside of it? Is God incapable of entering it?" To this, I think a satisfactory answer is yes, he's capable, just as capable as we are as throwing ourselves into a volcano; we could, but we never would. The analogy fails because we could slip, though God can never "slip". I'm not saying no is an impossible answer, but I think saying yes sidesteps the difficult and tedious discussion about omnipotence (which would invariably come up). I don't mind discussing the point, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to solving the dilemma either.

Sean

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/29/2002 11:30 PM (GMT -6)

[Meph: Wouldn't it be better to NOT consider moral character as a defining characteristic, but CAPACITY for morality? Think about this. In your view, it would not be possible for God to be morally free in ANY sense, because the moral character is determined. Basically, moral freedom would be forfeited.

Doc: It seems to me that there is a difference between "moral freedom" and "libertarian freedom." One is morally free insofar as one is free to be moral. For contingent creatures, this freedom has to be acquired by libertarian freedom – hence our (unwarranted) proclivity to identify the two. For a necessary being, however, moral freedom would be inherent. There is no temptation to NOT be morally free.

Here’s a question that my last statement forces. You agree that "God cannot be tempted " (James 1:13). Yet if God has to genuinely CHOOSE to do good – he could have chosen to be less than perfectly good – then he CAN be (or atleast once was) "tempted" to do evil. Hmmmmm?

Starkman: God cannot sin" "God cannot lie" Trying to say that these are just things we won't do because He chooses not to isn't good enough. It isn't even the context of the passages where these are quoted. God isn't able to do evil simply because, I believe, He's not caught inside the vicious dual of good and evil.

Doc: I rest my case.

Sean: Is God incapable of entering it [evil]?" To this, I think a satisfactory answer is yes, he's capable, just as capable as we are as throwing ourselves into a volcano; we could, but we never would.

Doc: Here’s where the distinction between POWER and CHARACTER is important. God’s "can’t" isn’t a matter of power, but character. He has the sheer power to do anything he wants. He’s far more powerful than the devil, and thus could do far MORE evil – IF HE WANTED TO. But he has the eternal character not to do this. It’s not a limitation, for the ability to do evil is not a positive thing. Its like the "power" of a light bulb not to shine bright. It’s a defect, as you say, not a positive attribute.

Good thoughts
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 3/22/2002 9:19 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman,

It doesn't say that God cannot lie. Instead, like so many other ideas about God, He chooses not to lie.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Newcomb
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116

Posted 4/9/2002 5:52 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Doc: Here’s where the distinction between POWER and CHARACTER is important. God’s "can’t" isn’t a matter of power, but character. He has the sheer power to do anything he wants. He’s far more powerful than the devil, and thus could do far MORE evil – IF HE WANTED TO. But he has the eternal character not to do this. It’s not a limitation, for the ability to do evil is not a positive thing.

Hmm. It seems that this rests on the word apeirastos from James 1:13. I don't know Greek, Doc, can this word mean "not liable" as opposed to "not capable" of sinning? I do believe it is a matter of character, not capability. If Jesus was not capable of sinning, then he really wasn't tempted, was he?
An illustration:
Cocaine is out on the street and available. I have free will and could go take some. It is always available, but it is not really tempting to do that so I am not liable to that sin, though it is a real temptation because I could choose it. On the other hand, sexual sin really tempts me constantly. There is my battle. I win, but it is a battle. When we think of temptation we tend to think of it like the sexual sin would be to me, that is, really tempting, as opposed to the cocaine issue which I am really not liable to, but it just isn't in my character to do that. I think God is like that too. He could choose it, but it just doesn't appeal to him because his character is different. He won’t.
God designed us with parameters of good. Evil is the lack of those. God is good. It isn't 'like him' to do evil or to choose sin much like it isn't like me to take cocaine. Could he? Certainly. Will he? No.
I am not sure at all that this involves a once-and-for-all decision by God. THE OV states that God changes his mind. This seens to contradict that idea.

"Neuk'em"

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:50 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual