Is Theistic Worldview Justified? An Apologetic Perspective
Introduction
The question of whether God would be justified in allowing human free will, even if it leads to moral choices contrary to His intentions, is a complex and deeply philosophical one. This article aims to provide an apologetic perspective supporting theistic worldview by examining this issue logically and critically, while engaging with prominent atheist thinkers such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Russell.
The Problem of Evil
One of the primary objections to the existence of God is the problem of evil, which posits that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would not allow suffering or immoral choices to occur. In response to this objection, theists argue that human free will provides a plausible explanation for the presence of evil in the world.
Free Will and Moral Responsibility
A key aspect of theistic worldview is the belief in human free will – the capacity for individuals to make autonomous decisions separate from any divine determination. This concept is supported by philosopher Immanuel Kant, who posited that moral agents must be able to act independently of external influences to maintain moral responsibility (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785).
The argument for free will as a justification for allowing immoral choices relies on several points:
Autonomy
Human autonomy is essential for individuals to make genuine moral choices. If God were to intervene every time someone made an immoral decision, it would undermine our capacity for moral agency and render us mere puppets in the divine plan.
Moral Growth
By permitting human beings to exercise free will, even when they make mistakes or choose immorality, God enables individuals to learn from their errors and grow morally. Through experiencing the consequences of poor choices, humans can develop empathy, compassion, and a deeper understanding of right and wrong.
Divine Hiddenness
The concept of divine hiddeness refers to the idea that an all-powerful and all-knowing God may deliberately choose not to reveal Himself or intervene directly in human affairs (Rowe, 2015). This perspective provides a possible explanation for why God would allow humans to make immoral choices despite His intentions.
One rationale behind divine hiddenness is that if God were visibly present and intervening constantly, it might negate the possibility of genuine faith. Faith requires some level of uncertainty or ambiguity about God’s existence, allowing individuals to freely choose whether to believe in Him or not.
The Soul-Making Theodicy
Another argument for justifying immoral choices resulting from human free will is John Hick’s soul-making theodicy (Evil and the God of Love, 1966). This perspective suggests that suffering and evil are necessary components of a world designed to produce individuals with virtuous character.
Hick argues that in order to develop spiritual maturity, moral virtues, and resilience, human beings must confront challenges, hardships, and opportunities for growth. Immoral choices resulting from free will can contribute to this process by allowing us to learn valuable lessons through our mistakes.
Addressing Objections
Theistic worldview is not without its critics, including prominent atheist thinkers such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great), and Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not a Christian). These intellectuals have raised various objections to the concept of God’s existence or the justifications for allowing immoral choices due to human free will.
Some common counterarguments include:
- The omnipotence paradox: If God is all-powerful, could He create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it? This apparent contradiction raises questions about whether an all-powerful being can truly exist.
- The hiddenness problem: Why would an all-loving and all-knowing God deliberately remain hidden from His creation if the ultimate goal is for humans to believe in Him?
- The Evidential Problem of Evil: Given the sheer amount of suffering in the world, can one still rationally believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity?
In response to these objections, proponents of theistic worldview may argue that:
- Omnipotence does not mean God is subject to logical contradictions; rather, it refers to His ability to do anything consistent with His nature.
- Divine hiddenness allows for genuine faith and moral growth, as discussed previously.
- The soul-making theodicy provides a possible explanation for why suffering exists in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God.
Conclusion
The question of whether God would be justified in allowing human free will to lead to moral choices that are not in line with divine intentions is complex. However, from a theistic worldview perspective, arguments such as autonomy, moral growth, divine hiddenness, and soul-making theodicy can provide plausible explanations for this phenomenon.
Engaging with prominent atheist thinkers like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Russell allows us to critically examine these arguments and refine our understanding of both theistic and atheistic perspectives. Ultimately, a careful analysis of logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and philosophical concepts supports a theistic worldview that accounts for human free will and its consequences on moral choices.
References
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Academy Edition.
Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. Macmillan.
Rowe, W. L. (2015). “Divine Hiddenness: A New Challenge to Theism.” In Howard-Snyder, D., & Moser, P. (Eds.), Divine Hiddenness: New Philosophical Essays (pp. 17-36). Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.
Russell, B. (1957). Why I Am Not a Christian. Simon and Schuster.
Keywords
Theistic worldview, free will, moral responsibility, divine hiddenness, soul-making theodicy, problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, hiddenness problem, evidential problem of evil, autonomy, moral growth, faith