Free will and why bad things happen to good people

First of all, readers, we apologize for the long hiatus since our last post. Sometimes the rigors of medical school get in the way of debunking dogma online.
Yet now that we've got a little down time, we bring our attention back to obliterating some of the more significant pillars of the argument for god according to the major monotheistic traditions.

The non-believer is often asked what he or she would do if, upon dying, he/she were to discover that there really is a god (and heaven, devil, hell, etc.) after all. The question is meant to strike fear, or at least doubt, in skeptic's very soul (brain); the same fear/doubt which motivates most believers to do the things they do in an attempt to reserve their seat at god's feastin' table. The easy response to the believer's question is simply: "I'll do the same thing you will in the event you discover there is a god, but not the one you worshipped your whole life." It's unlikely one would get very far with such a response however, for as we've pointed out in earlier posts, a believer's faith that his god is in fact the right choice out of hundreds, is surprisingly, and unreasonably, strong.

Yet, there is another way to answer this question that, frankly, cuts through the bull. In speaking for myself (Steve writing) I can say that yes, were I to die and find myself standing at the pearly gates, I would most certainly be surprised. Incredibly so. However, would I regret living my adult life as a non-believer and subsequently beg god's forgiveness for my indiscretion? No. On the contrary, if I had the chance to speak with him before being shipped off to eternal damnation, I would spit in his face. I would not be doing this out of anger over my fate (though I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed about that part, too), but rather for the billions of people he allowed to suffer through this so called gift that is life.

This brings us to the issue of bad things happening to good people. Like the skeptic, the believer is also asked her fair share of questions (whether she responds with anything of value is another issue), among them is a classic: if god is so benevolent and kind, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? This question is frequently equated with the query as to why bad things happen to good people. They are essentially the same, for evil and evil deeds would not be a conceptual reality were they not being directed toward the innocent and good.

The religious community's traditional response to this troubling reality is simply and seemingly flawless: man has free will. You see, god loves man above all other things. Thus, in his infinite wisdom he realized that it would be cruel to forcibly ensure man's adherence to certain rules; it would be too limiting to deny Adam his own will with which he could choose right from wrong. By providing man with free will god endowed his greatest creation with the power of choice, but at a cost: the inevitable reality that some men would choose to do evil things. Therefore, the little boy who must endure years of beatings by his alcoholic mother's hand, or the undergraduate who is gang raped after being drugged at a party both must recognize that were god to have interfered and preventing these tragedies, he would have to deny free will, and to do such a thing would be utterly cruel and unloving. Moreover, the reward for those who choose righteousness will be that much greater after having resisted years of temptation.

Now, while the above paragraph is saturated with sarcasm, it does accurately represent the religious assertion that man's free will accounts for the evils of the world, and essentially god had to weigh the benefits of man's freedom against his potential for cruelty; freedom evidently won. The believer's solution is full of holes from point A. One need only consider disease to realize that not every instance of bad befalling the good can be blamed on someone else's free will.

If a woman has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, that reality is completely out of her control. Yes, her very existence is the result of her parents' free decision to procreate and pass on potentially flawed DNA. However, even if we follow her family tree all the way back to its roots, the ultimate blame for her genetic disadvantage lies with faulty DNA replication rather than some ancestor's conscious decision. There is no free will to be found in the realm of chromosomes, and therefore, the buck of any disease which has a genetic cause cannot be passed off on free will.

Further, the free will theory is a blatant contradiction of another religious favorite: the belief in miracles. If god truly chooses to stay out of human affairs, leaving us free to make our own choices, than how can anyone claim that some occurrence of great fortune is the result of "god's plan." The mere idea of a divine plan doesn't jive with free will, for how can one be both free to do whatever he pleases yet all the while progressing along some predetermined path?

However, the ultimate weakness to be found in the free will solution lies in the fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem at hand. To refresh our memories, the theory goes as follows: god loved man, and because god loved man so much, he realized that man needed to possess his own will rather than be slave to the will of god. Unfortunately, by giving man free will, god also gave man the potential to do evil things, and therefore, the evils of the world are the result of certain individuals' misuse of god's gift. The problem lies in the unwarranted assumption that god's giving man free will necessitated his giving man the ability to do evil.

If the incongruity is not yet clear, consider this: I cannot turn myself invisible; does this mean I lack free will? Further, I can not remove my own head; does this too mean that I lack free will? The answer in both cases is no. Freedom of will simply refers to one's ability to choose how he utilizes his built in capabilities, not his ability to do anything imaginable. Therefore, the fact that I cannot fly like a bird or breathe under water like a fish simply illustrates two of the myriad of limitations that come with being human.

Now if we, like the believer, are assuming that man was designed by god, and if we are further assuming that god is benevolent, then why would he not create man, the being after his own image, with a limitation that prevented evil. Just as he failed to endow Adam with gills, claws, wings, eight arms, the ability to morph into different shapes, etc., god needed only make the man incapable of murdering, raping, stealing and the like. Humans would still be free to choose what kind of foods to eat, or what sort of clothes to wear, but when it came to murder and torture, such deeds, like flying, would be imaginable but impossible.

I can sense that some will disagree and simply insist that man's ability to become a killer or a rapist must come with his free will to do other things; if we are to be free to swing an axe, how can we not be free to swing it wherever we please, like into someone else's head? This is a classic example of the illogical argument that current circumstances stand as evidence for their inevitability; that things had to turn out the way they did, because, well, that's how they turned out. However, this simple is not true nor does it jive with the concept of god. We are asked to imagine a being with unlimited knowledge and power, and yet we must accept that he failed to come up with a design that somehow prevented evil deeds? Such a creator would be neither perfect nor very smart.

The believer must come to terms with at least one of three possibilities: a) god failed to realize the simple fact that if he didn't want men to do evil deeds he simply needed to make evil one of the many things men can't do, and in failing to realize this god demonstrates himself to be a moron unworthy of worship; or b) that god, knowing full well that, if given free will, men would commit all sorts of evils (many in his name) resulting in the suffering of billions, still chose to proceed accordingly, in which case he is not benevolent and thus unworthy of worship; or c) that god does not exist, the evils and misfortunes of the world are simply bad luck, and by not existing, god is unworthy of worship. I'm personally circling choice C, but since the result of all three is the same, be my guest and choose freely.