q9: This will be my first post on this site, and I will say now I am not an expert in philosophy or the different sciences. Having said that, I apologize in advance if I make errors in my logic or reasoning. I thought I would raise two questions that, while they are only indirectly related to Craig's work (whom I'm a big fan), have been bothering me all the same. They are the questions, "How can good come out of evil (suffering)?", and "Is free will only that when you choose against your desires?"
jc: Jesus gave a facile and in the end insupportable answer to (1), that the reward would be great in Heaven. This is one of the central props of Christendom, inspiring many, but is also one of the logs to be cast into the fire on Christ’s return. Instead of rewards to come later, we want to know about its usefulness to us now, if any. Had Jesus been after friends instead of followers, He’d have asked people to stay quiet in among persecutors. He came close to it in, “Cast not your pearls before swine,” but I am filling out the idea.
As for (2), yes, it is free will only when one is free from desires, but in the case of pure souls there is no struggle because these are in a desireless condition. Any choice a pure soul makes is good and wise. They can’t even make a bad choice if they try. It isn’t in them. So the real question of religion is how to attain this pure state, a question unasked.
q9: 1. After watching a few debates and reading one and a half books (God? A Debate... and On Guard), one big argument Craig gives against the "suffering making God improbable" issue is him saying that it is suffering that apparently helps stimulate growth in Christianity and can help make people better in the long run.
jc: This is the watered-down answer, given to the struggling souls. Human sorrow is generally because of thwarted desire. In an advanced way it could be called a form of whining, but they don’t have the power to cease this whining because the desire is deep within them and they are not masters of their minds. So Craig in wisdom tries to help them build upon their condition, rather than tearing them down, as Jesus said “the thief” would do. In the longer run it is better that humans try to come to grips with their state.
q9: While I believe that to be true, I am still left with the question.... Why does that happen? In the way that out of nothing, nothing comes, shouldn't I also expect that out of natural evil (suffering), evil comes? This idea has plagued me since before I even knew about Craig. Why is it that the best way to grow (and to grow the fastest) spiritually is the way that causes the most pain? The way to be the most good... Is to undergo the most evils. Why couldn't the path of being most good be filled with.... I don't know... Good things?
jc: This is perhaps the core issue of spiritual growth, that the paths of righteousness are experienced as anguish by souls still plagued by desire. Furthermore, work is usually more efficacious than suffering, so the path forward for them is not necessarily the harshest one they can possibly endure. All require at least some joy for daily function, even if these joys are drawn in an impure fashion. Yet humans will benefit, in the longest run, by seeing the higher standards enacted on this world. It hasn’t been done before now.
q9: I am probably going to get an answer saying that I am asking this question with the attitude that God's purpose in life is for me to be happy instead of knowing Him, and that it is my disappointment that drives this question.
jc: This is about the gist, the “good things” a growing soul expects, are not really good. In general they rejoice in material value, unable to find meaning in personal interactions.
q9: You are probably right, but that won't help much to alleviate this itch. Even if someone were to explain how the taking in of evils and turning them into goods worked (which would be nice to know), my ultimate desire for this question is knowing why that had to be that way in the first place. Alas, I fear that might remain a mystery.
jc: This thread is so old I can’t answer it personally, but in general someone asking these questions is exhibiting uncommon profundity, and might be pleased to know the paths of righteousness taste sweet to the wise. As I say, the paths have not been shown yet, so they don’t know where to turn for a better way of life. I’m coming to the conclusion the guidance for the rising souls is best dispensed from near their echelon or level. A higher teacher will always sound too harsh, his requests too demanding. Perhaps eventually these souls will “catch on,” that a harsh teacher can mean rapid progress, but at this moment in history there is no taste for it. The trouble is that once established in perfection, the imperfect look ridiculous. Why can’t they just see things the right way?
q9: 2. The way I worded this question probably made it confusing, but it was the only way I knew how to word it.
jc: The initial wording was, “Is free will only that when you choose against your desires?” A new set of desires comes to those who have been “born again,” that Christians have misinterpreted as minor experiences. Formerly the desires were selfish, meaning they were attempts to grasp joy APART from the good of the whole world. Now all the desires are selfless, which means these are attempts to grasp joy ALONG WITH the good of the whole world. In this of course, “the good of the whole world” must be interpreted objectively, so that others in a similar desireless condition would sympathize.
q9: I'll hopefully help by giving an example(s). I'll start be asking this question. Is free will only free will when we consciously practice it? A huge example would be a small child who is just now being taught about Jesus. Of course his natural inclination is to accept Christ due to his emotions and psychological state. Even well known atheists such as Richard Dawkins was (supposedly) a believer until he was 15. Rather than free will, it seems the children simply act on feelings, and if they really wanted to practice their right to choose they would consciously go against those feelings and reject Christ (I am in no way saying that is a good idea I am only bringing that up for the sake of the argument).
jc: Children and young adults too have a very limited perspective. It is hard or impossible to survive without making a presumption the elders know what they are doing, that they have done the best for their souls and world, and are not jeopardizing the entire planet having neglected their souls too. So it takes time to move away from this phalanx of contrary opinion surrounding oneself, particularly as they keep clinging and demanding.
q9: It feels strange that for a God to cherish the idea of free will so strongly, yet when it comes to the biggest question in someone's life (accepting Christ or not), they are more inclined IT SEEMS to me to accept because of their emotions that God put into them in the first place.
jc: I don’t think children are responding from emotions, but from a limited perspective under intense peer pressure from adults who conceive them to be types of possessions. I’d also say this act of “accepting Christ” is empty regarding salvation, although it helps the individual walk a straighter path in human society. To accept Christ would mean accepting His living Word, but no Christian rises higher than crucifying Jesus over again.
The souls have their own emotions. God isn’t putting these in, otherwise the world would be perfect. Where the emotions go deeds follow naturally, and humans hate the good while loving evil, contrary to God’s intent and desire for souls in these bodies allowing intelligence. As Christians attest, the Holy Spirit can add supplementation to emotions, but these effects are short-lived and partial. It can’t make an impure soul delight in good.
q9: So.... It seems if it were to be truly and 100% free will, then we should have absolutely no influence thrust upon us whatsoever other than our own decision making to make our life decisions.
jc: The discussion has turned from the original sentence, now speaking of “emotions” where formerly it was “desires.” I’d be recalcitrant to say a craving should be counted as a mood, but would admit possibly humans never rise above continuous cravings and would regard these to be their emotional base. The truly poignant or profound emotions require detachment from the senses. You won’t ever find human children free from the oppression of possessive parents, wanting these children to reflect their own worldviews.
q9: Craig's debate with Millican comes to mind as I type. Millican says (and I paraphrase immensely) to the audience that if he were to give everyone the equation 2+2=? and tell them that everyone who gets it wrong gets excruciating pain, they would pick the right answers (which is obviously 4). Now he ironically goes and says the opposite of where my thought process is going and says that does not invalidate free will in any way or something along those lines (pardon me I am speaking from foggy memory). I, however, ask... Why doesn't it? AT BEST, I think it makes free will a foggy and ambiguous concept when you are to be controlled under your own feelings and desires.... Desires like not wanting to be in pain.
jc: The threat of pain would only eliminate hecklers, who would give the wrong answer to watch the speaker squirm. It would not influence knowledge. For instance if the audience were asked to outline Einstein’s general theory of relatively, most would fail.
Christianity does use the threat of pain to increase its ranks, but they do not really offer relief from the threat of hell as they pridefully imagine. Choosing between the painful and the non-painful is not really free. It is just basic to avoid the painful. In the case of physical analogies this is obvious, but since humans feel mental anguish to choose what the angels define as good, they go the opposite way from dharma or righteousness. The nature of this anguish is generally frustrated desire, that they wanted something selfish.
q9: Anyways... Hopefully I can get some good answers and feedback. These have been killing me for a long time. Thank you.
jc: A good question does not lose its value with time. The freedom of the pure souls is not exercised in reaction to pain. Nonetheless such souls are well-ordered, which means emotion comes into the service of reason. The intellect declares what is good, and then the person feels good about it, as they feel badly about what the intellect declares to be bad. This is not a reactive condition, but a positive state extending into degrees of good.
