The Inconsistency of Intervention and Free Will

Atheists often argue that the concept of an intervening God is incompatible with human free will, citing the paradox of divine sovereignty and human autonomy. This critique raises important questions about the nature of agency, morality, and the limits of divine power.

The Problem of Divine Intervention

If God intervenes in human affairs, does this not imply a level of determinism that undermines our freedom to make choices? If God can alter the course of events or influence human decisions, it seems that human autonomy is compromised. As philosopher John Mackie notes:

“If God has foreknowledge of what we shall do, and if he is sovereign in the sense that nothing happens without his will or permission, then our actions are not really free.” [1]

Moreover, if God intervenes to prevent certain outcomes or promote others, this would suggest a level of control that contradicts the concept of human agency. Richard Dawkins argues:

“If God wanted to forgive sinners, why not just forgive them? Why bother with the whole crucifixion business at all?” [2]

This critique highlights the tension between divine intervention and human free will. If God can intervene in human affairs, it appears that our choices are no longer truly ours.

The Limits of Omniscience

Another challenge to atheism arises from the concept of omniscience. If God is all-knowing, does this not imply a level of determinism that precludes human freedom? Bertrand Russell argues:

“If God knows what I am going to do, then I am not free to choose otherwise.” [3]

However, this critique assumes that God’s knowledge of future events determines their outcome. An alternative perspective posits that God’s omniscience is compatible with human free will, as God’s knowledge does not cause the events but rather observes them.

Alvin Plantinga responds to Russell’s challenge by arguing:

“God’s knowing what I will do doesn’t cause me to do it; if anything, it’s the other way around: my doing it is what causes God to know that I will do it.” [4]

This perspective suggests that God’s omniscience does not undermine human freedom but rather coexists with it.

The Necessity of Human Freedom

Atheists often argue that a world without divine intervention would be more conducive to human freedom. However, this assumes that human freedom is an absolute value that can exist independently of a larger cosmic context. C.S. Lewis counters:

“A universe in which there is no God would be a universe in which there was no free will… Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” [5]

Lewis’s argument suggests that human freedom is not an end in itself but rather a means to achieve greater goods. In this view, divine intervention can be seen as a necessary condition for human freedom to flourish.

Conclusion

The critique of atheism from the perspective of free will and divine intervention raises important questions about the nature of agency, morality, and the limits of divine power. While atheists argue that divine intervention undermines human autonomy, alternative perspectives suggest that God’s omniscience and sovereignty can coexist with human freedom. The debate highlights the complexity of these issues and challenges readers to reexamine their assumptions about the relationship between God and humanity.

References:

[1] Mackie, J.L. (1955). Evil and Omnipotence. Mind, 64(254), 200-212.

[2] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press.

[3] Russell, B. (1910). Pragmatism. In Philosophical Essays (pp. 109-133). Longmans, Green, and Co.

[4] Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

[5] Lewis, C.S. (1952). Mere Christianity. Geoffrey Bles.