ETS 2008 – James Spiegel “Free Will and Soul Making”

December 4, 2008 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (559)

I wasn’t able to attend Jim’s paper this year, but he was
kind enough to give me a copy anyway. This could be viewed as especially
generous after I kept hassling him about Ty Cobb’s lifetime batting being
incorrect on his blog. But now that it is fixed, I can recommend his blog
without exception. Go read it for a lot of wisdom and a little folly.

The evidential problem of evil suggests that if God is
all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, then evil should not exist. Two popular
theodicies (reasons for the existence of evil), free will and soul making, are rarely used together. For whatever reason, most apologists see
them in opposition to one another. Spiegel argues that they are actually dependent
on one another, that they have much in common and that they should be used
together in answering the problem of evil.

The free will theodicy puts all the blame for evil on
humans, arguing that God gave people freedom and this freedom is of such immense
worth as to justify the existence of evil. This view usually sees the goal of freedom as the development of genuine love toward God and others.

For the soul making theodicy, evil exists for the purpose of
shaping us into greater conformity to God’s likeness. God created us in His
image, but there are some virtues that really cannot be developed without the
experience of evil. These include qualities such as courage, forgiveness, and
perseverance.

Both theodicies are basically means-ends explanations for
evil, and are actually mutually dependent. Spiegel summarizes his argument: “In
order for human freedom to necessitate the possibility (or reality) of evil the
free will theodicy must specify the desirability of certain evil-contingent
free choices, the good of which can be adequately accounted for only relative
to the end of good moral character. On the other hand, this end-in-view of the
soul-making theodicy—character development—is only achievable given the
possibility of free will, since this is a pre-condition for moral agency and
the requisite choices involved in acquiring second-order virtues.”

These theodicies each have similar objections with
similar answers. Some have suggested that real evil is not necessary for
character development. The problem is that illusory evil would only result in
genuine character. Similarly, some suggest that only an illusion of free will
in necessary to bring about genuine love. However, just like in the case of
soul-making, virtual freedom only results in virtual love. Explanations for natural evil show where the
theodicies diverge, but are still complimentary. The free will theodicy
explains natural evil as the result of the Fall of humankind, while soul-making
explains it as part of the evil allowed in order to shape people into God’s
likeness. In this way, the soul-making theodicy is more teleological. So while
one theodicy may be preferred over the other, they are in fact mutually
dependent and complimentary.

UPDATE: Jim has posted his paper at his blog, so you can read the entire paper there.

Here are a couple of my summaries of Jim's papers from past years:

ETS 2005: James Spiegel on Ethics and Art

ETS 2006- James Spiegel: The Epistemic Ramifications of Behavior

Related posts:

1. Book Review: The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel
2. ETS 3: James Spiegel on Ethics and Art
3. Book Review: The Benefits of Providence by James Spiegel
4. ETS 2006- James Spiegel: The Epistemic Ramifications of Behavior
5. Book Review: The Love of Wisdom by Steven Cowan and James Spiegel
6. ETS 3.1- Where I Disagree with James Spiegel

Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts