How Does Peter Van Inwagen Respond To The Problem Of Evil

The purpose of this essay is to explore Peter Van Inwagen’s take on Free Will, as well as how he uses it to respond to The Problem of Evil. It will also cover objections to his Free Will Defense and his responses to them as well as my own personal responses. The Problem of Evil is the age old argument that since there are so many horrendous evils and cruelties happening in the world, God cannot exist. This is because God is a morally perfect and omnipotent being, and because he is good, he could never allow the horrors of the world come into play. And since it is obvious there are clearly horrible things happening in the world, God does not exist. And the possibility that the evil occurs for a higher purpose of achieving a greater good is

A theodicy would argue against The Problem of Evil by stating that even though there is evil in the world that is not a reason to believe that God does not exist. Not only is a theodicy an attempt to prove that God exists, but it also tries to justify God’s reasons for allowing evil in the world. A defense on the other hand, does not attempt to prove anything. Instead, it is merely a suggestion of what could possibly be true if God actually did exist, like a story or a scenario of why God would allow evil to happen. Van Inwagen presents his explanation of free will as a defense. He argues that since god is this perfect being, he wanted to create the best world he could possibly create, and that is a world that includes free will. And in order for free will to truly be free will, God cannot influence or inhibit it in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, God has no control over free will. Because what humans choose to do with their own free will is out of God’s control, God also cannot be blamed for the evils and cruelties that arise from the freely made choices of human beings. One might object and say that God could just take away free will and put a stop to the terrible things that people have caused, but Van Inwagen counters that by saying that again, free will is needed to make the world the best it can be. So in conclusion, Van Inwagen would say that there

I do not believe that the Free Will Defense is satisfactory because again, then positives of free will do not outweigh the negatives. If God is truly a morally perfect, omnipotent, and loving being, he could easily get rid of the evil in the world by just directing people to make the right choices. While it sounds nice to think of mankind journeying back to harmony in God’s love, it almost seems as though God is playing some kind of sick game where he sees how long he can torture humans. Van Inwagen also would say that free will gives the world more morally right things than morally wrong things, but how would someone even begin to measure that amount? And is it even possible to obtain an accurate measurement of how many good things have happened, and how many evil? As for the objection about natural disasters, Van Inwagen would say again, that this is a product of free will, as humans chose to live in areas affected by these disasters. However, that just seems incredibly petty. This all goes back to how God is supposed to be a good and perfect being. If he knows that people in these areas in the world are suffering from these natural disasters, couldn’t he, as an all-powerful God, stop these from happening? It doesn’t make sense to say that God would continue to send these