To me, the Free Will Defense given here was lucid and convincing. I have not seen it better delineated than it is in this book.
The second half of the book was less interesting. ( )

Achei muito difícil. Fiquei na dúvida se dava 4 ou 5, mas como cheguei a conclusão que não aproveitei ao máximo por falha minha e não do autor, dei 5.
O autor começa debatendo o problema do mal e mostrando que a existência do mal não é contraditória com a existência de um Deus bom e onipotente. Depois ele segue analisando os argumentos para a existência de Deus(Cosmológico, Teleológico e Ontológico), mostrando suas deficiências e defendendo sua versão do argumento ontológico. ( )

How do I rate a book that will bore most of you but titillate the rest? Half way between two stars and six stars, I guess.

I’m secure in my status as a religion nerd, so I’ll admit I loved it. This is an introduction to philosophical apologetics, a short little book that can be read in a couple hours, and understood in five or six hours. Philosophical reflection, Plantinga assures us, is not that different than just thinking hard. It’s is an excursion into the joy of logic … for the fun of it, not necessarily to reach any meaningful conclusions. He spends half the book discussing the problem of evil, and the other half on natural theology. Thus half of the book presents a case against God and half attempts to prove he exists. In the second half, Plantinga briefly introduces the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, and then spends the rest of the book on the Ontological Argument.

Plantinga’s argument against the problem of evil is fascinating yet unsatisfying, and his discussion of the ontological argument is equally fun but equally unconvincing … like one of those puzzles where you know there’s something wrong and can’t quite place your finger on it.

One note: Do not try to read an electronic version! The constant referring backward to numbered arguments will be very frustrating without a paper copy. ( )

The Problem of Evil

Suppose that God, as most Christians believe, is wholly good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present. Given this definition, God ought to hate evil and possess the power to eradicate it from the universe. We know, however, that evil does exist. Logically, therefore, we must conclude that God does not exist.

This proof, known as the problem of evil, is logically valid, meaning that its premises lead to its conclusion. In order to prove the existence of God, then, one must prove the falseness surrounding any of the argument’s premises. Without such proof, the conclusion, “God does not exist,” stands.

Alvin Plantinga’s God, Freedom, and Evil begins by deconstructing this well-known proof; it ends with a reconstruction of a natural theological proof for the existence of God.

Deconstructing the Problem of Evil

Plantinga commences by immediately evaluating the problem of evil. He begins by simply questioning the soundness of the atheist’s set of premises. Before I continue, it is important to pause for a second to explain the use of “sound” and “valid”. When a philosopher proclaims a logical proof to be valid, one merely professes that the conclusion proceeds from the set of premises. Soundness, on the other hand, occurs when an argument is both valid and true.

To illustrate, this argument is valid: All humans are 8 feet tall; Andrew is a human; therefore, Andrew is 8 feet tall. While the conclusion logically follows the premises, the argument is not sound because the premise, “All humans are 8 feet tall” is not true.

Returning to God, Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga ponders the premise, “God hates evil” in problem of evil proof. He asks if God has a perfectly reasonable explanation for allowing evil. If there were such an explanation, God would retain his attributes, and, thus remain omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present – and evil could continue to exist.

To this end, Plantinga proposes freedom. To summarize,

“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so” (30).

If God grants free will to creatures, it logically follows that each creature possesses the opportunity to choose good or evil. With this choice, then, evil becomes allowable.

Of course, I admit that my synopsis is simplified. With dense writing, Plantinga methodically waltzes from argument to argument offering objections, rebuttals, and new proposals. In short, he argues that the existence of free will as an added premise to the problem of evil creates an invalid argument.

A Theological Argument

In the second section of God, Freedom, and Evil, Plantinga explores the validity of theological arguments for the existence of God. First, he explores medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument finding it invalid rather quickly. Second, and just as quickly, Plantinga rejects philosopher William Paley’s teleological argument.

Finally, Plantinga appraises St. Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument. While exceedingly complex, Anselm’s argument surrounds the idea of definition and existence. In much too simple terms, Anselm proves God’s existence through arguing that there is no being upon which a greater could be conceived. If you are interested in a deeper look, I suggest googling “the ontological argument”.

Much like the problem of evil, Plantinga explores the various objections and counterarguments to the ontological argument. Ultimately, Plantinga is unable to conclusively prove God’s existence, but he can prove enough to say that theism is a valid intellectual position.

“What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology” (112).

Is God All Omni?

Although I believe Plantinga successfully reasons his positions in God, Freedom, and Evil, I do not think he will convince anyone to switch sides. For an atheist, Plantinga offers interesting critiques but no conclusive proof. Likewise, Plantinga supplies the theist with solid lines of reasoning in the universal debate around God’s existence.

I’m not even sure Plantinga’s arguments support a proof for the God found in Scripture, however. Some theologians, in fact, would critique Plantinga's arguments by pointing to the Bible. They would argue that a careful reading of Scripture suggests that God, while certainly knowing, powerful, and present, isn’t always omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-present. In many scenarios, God expresses regret or reverses course(take Hezekiah as an example when God decides to add years to the king’s life).

In fact, these “omni” principles share more similarities with ancient Greek philosophy than with Christian scripture.

Certainly, Plantinga argues his position well. But, I’m not convinced that he is arguing for the Christian God. In reality, his argument is for some super intelligent and powerful creative being. And certainly at the core of Plantinga’s thought, his arguments are meant to support the rationality of belief – a pursuit far different from proving that the God of Scripture exists.

Nevertheless, God, Freedom, and Evil is an important work in philosophy and theology. If you are interested in the debate around God’s existence, you must read God, Freedom, and Evil.

Originally published at http://wherepenmeetspaper.blogspot.com ( )

This is the popularized work by Plantinga in which he proposes the "Free Will Defense" in order to give an answer to the problem of God and evil. ( )