Libertarian Freedom in the Fall

I suppose that among the various theological arguments for libertarian freedom, this one is unique. It begins with a set of theological beliefs about the original unfallen state of human beings and deduces that human beings have (at least then) libertarian freedom. Simply, we begin with the fact that human beings were created by God alone. We were created good. We made a choice to do evil. Therefore that choice requires libertarian freedom.

This first points are matters of orthodoxy. According to Genesis, human beings were created good (Gen 1:31). There was no evil, sin or any inclination to do either. Adam and Eve made a choice to do evil (Gen 3:1-7, Ro 5:12, 1 Tim 2:14). So whatever we conclude, denying one of these points is not an option. This alone does not give us libertarian freedom. We need to examine what it means to do evil.

Suppose that I know that X'ing is evil. I also know that it is possible for me to do X in my current situation. Suppose that I believe that some of my desires will be at least partially fulfilled by X'ing. So far, I have done no wrong. But the moment that I form an intention to do X, I am now sinning. Unless outside factors stop me, I will do X. But now we ask what caused me to form an intention to do X? How would one answer this in the case of Adam and Eve?

One could suggest that it was entirely due to a particular set of beliefs and desires that each person formed such an intention. If so, then are the desires evil? Did one deliberately ignore other beliefs? Was there any evil or sin in this previous state? If one says yes to any of these questions, then I one just repeats the causation question. What caused that desire: deliberate ignorance or evil desires? I would continue to follow this pattern until I was told either that the previous state was good, or that the current state was not caused by the previous one. So suppose that one were to state that this previous state was good rather than evil.

So Adam and Eve's intention to sin was caused by a good set of beliefs and desires. But then how did they sin? Their desires were good and they were not deliberately ignoring anything. So we have to conclude that they were either mistaken or insane. Neither of these options is possible given the information we have. Since God created them good, they were complete. They were functioning correctly and insanity is a matter of not functioning correctly. So insanity is not an option. Since they were told that they were not to eat of the tree, and they knew only good and authority from God, there was no way for them to make an honest mistake. So their intention to sin could not be caused by a good set of beliefs and desires either.

The remaining option is to suggest that their intention to sin was caused by something else. It could not be their condition or their character. Both of those were good. Neither could it be any part of their environment as that was also good. One is left with the suggestion that some external agent caused them to do so. We wouldn't accuse God of giving them an evil intention, so perhaps we are accusing the serpent? The very narrative of Genesis rules this idea out. So do the later statements in the epistles. So what option but libertarian freedom is left at this point?

I wish to briefly mention one argument that might be used at this point. One might simply declare that this matter is a mystery, and we do not understand how Adam and Eve were able to sin given their creation. This is not an option. First of all, the Bible does not commit us to a denial of libertarian freedom. Second, this is a matter of an explicit contradiction. Appealing to mystery in this case is mere hand-waving. I will say that this is my first attempt to deal with this argument properly. I do not consider Calvin's now rejected answer to this, nor do I consider anyone else.

What is Tritheism?

Tritheism is the belief that there are three gods. It is one way to deny trinitarianism. So I am not looking for the simple understanding of what tritheism is. I am trying to understand what it means to say that there are three gods. How is that to be distinguished from the claim of trinitarians that there are three persons, but one God?

One way to do this is by looking at some examples of multiple gods in various religions. Many forms of polytheism have deities that are born from other deities. These are cases of (at least) two different gods. So are deities that come into existence before or after other deities. There are also cases of deities that cease to exist before or after of deities. In all of these cases, multiple gods are in view. Polytheism does not contain more creative examples of multiple deities, but dualism does. In the form of dualism I am familiar with, one god is good and the other god is evil. Both are without beginning or end. Yet there are two gods rather than one. Some principle must underlie these cases, but what is it?

Looking at the polytheist example, one notices that if one divine person come into existence or ceases to exist at a different time than the other divine person, then there are two gods. Apart from the issue that any non-eternal being can't really be divine, let's look just at the numbering issue. in any case in which there are two individuals, one of which ceases to exist or begins to exist before the other, the two individuals are distinct beings. This is an example of a general principle. In the dualist example, we know that there two beings because they have incompatible properties. The same being cannot be continuously an advocate of good and a continuous advocate of evil at the same time. The temporal example is also an example of incompatible properties. So we could say that two individuals are distinct beings only if they have incompatible properties.

This will not be enough though. How do we know if two individuals lack incompatible properties? A further analysis of distinct beings is necessary. Let's suppose that two eternal and apparently compatible beings existed. The next question is to ask whether one of them could have existed without the other. If so, then the two individuals are also two distinct beings. So in general, for any two individuals, if one could exist without the other, then those two individuals are two different beings. If the two individuals are the same being, then one's existence is also the existence of the other.

If the trinitarian believes in one God, then she believes that the existence of the Son is the same existence as the Father and the Holy Spirit. She also believe that all three lack incompatible properties. With these understandings in place, it is impossible for anyone to believe in three gods. Tritheism is avoided. In that case, tritheism can be defined quite simply: there are three divine individuals and the existence of each individual is a different existence from the others.

Four Errors of (Modern) Philosophers

When we read philosophical writings, we aim to learn from what we read. Sometimes these writers point out errors in the work of other philosophers. These errors often tend to be the opposite of the errors that the particular philosopher falls into. As I think about it now, there are four errors that modern philosophers tend to fall into. These errors come in pairs, just like Aristotle's vices.

One of these errors is commonly found in 'scientific' philosophers. These are the philosophers who think of philosophy as a building block, defense or conceptual analysis of science itself. They often try to avoid metaphysics, deeper epistemology, and anything that carries the least scent of religion. Science is understood to be the ultimate human inquiry. The methods of science are the methods of knowledge. Science, as well as any discipline informed by its methods, are capable of discovering all knowledge in the universe given enough time. Nothing is hidden from human beings. We really can know everything! This is the error. No formal method can tell us everything, and some knowledge really is out of the reach of human beings.

The error opposite to this one is well recognized by 'scientific' philosophers themselves. It is commonly presented by mystical, ideological and religious philosophers for various reasons. These philosophers reject human reason(ing) because of various circumstances in the world. Perhaps reason is a human construct, it does not apply in the divine realm, it is irredeemably biased by power, or it does not address human concerns. Whatever the reason may be, human reason is rejected in favor of action. Yet these various philosophers attempt to use reason to support their own ideas! If it had such problems, then their reasoning shows that they should not use reason to justify their position. Their devaluing of reason is their error.

Sometimes, the discussion in academic philosophy can become so focussed and detailed that it is difficult to relate to the central issues of philosophy or the concerns of human beings. Many philosophers engage in minor disputes that eat up all of their time, while spending no time relating such disputes to the wider philosophical picture. This creates a divide between various philosophical areas. Connections between the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of religion are not explored. Neither are connections between other areas of philosophy. There is no systematic picture of philosophical thought. This error is the most common and therefore the one least likely to be recognized.

The opposite of that error is a focus on the central issues of philosophy and the concerns of human beings to the exclusion of those matters of detail necessary to them. The few philosophers who fall into this error recognize the current error in philosophy. The best solution is for the central matters to receive our time, and side issues are simply irrelevant. This position sounds quite silly. Matters of detail are necessary to solve any important matter. What we must avoid is turning a major issue into a minor one, or a minor one into a major one!

I do not mean to suggest that these are the only errors of modern philosophy, or even the most important ones. But I do think that they are common and important. The answer to these errors lies in recognizing them when they appear and seeking a middle ground between two extremes - just like the virtues of Aristotle.

The Moral Argument and Necessary Goodness

As Christians, we believe that God is good, not merely contingently but necessarily. Thomas Morris, in his book The Logic of God Incarnate, suggests that no biblical or philosophical argument for that position is successful. Rather than believing that God is necessarily good by reasons, we believe it by intuition. We believe that God is the greatest being and necessary goodness is greater than contingent goodness. Yet Morris is wrong. There is an argument for the necessary goodness of God.

Morris' first mistake was to take good and evil as commonly understood properties of actions and characters without giving a description of what good and evil were. Oddly enough, this is also a common mistake in arguments about the problem of evil. Some opinions about good and evil are quite different from others. Nonetheless, he appears to be working with the idea that good is necessarily so, while also being objective and real.

His second mistake is to ignore any argument for the existence of God that depends on moral categories. These arguments are arguing for the existence of a being that has special moral properties. So if they argued for the existence of a being that was necessarily morally good, then one would have a very good start on an argument that God was necessarily morally good!

Combining these two points leads us directly to the argument that Morris ignored. This is the moral argument. If good is necessary, objective and real (as Morris assumes) then where else could morality exist other than in God? Now is good is the same as God, then God is necessarily morally good. So now we have the argument. God is necessarily morally good because he is the ground of morality.