Explaining and Defending the Free-Thinking Argument

An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument

by Timothy A. Stratton^1,* and J.P.Moreland ²

¹Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary ²Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Academic Editors: Brian Huffling and Hans Zollner Religions2022, 13(10), 988; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13100988 Received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 13 October 2022 / Published: 19 October 2022 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology) Download PDFReview ReportsCitation Export

Abstract

This paper is a defense of the big ideas behind the free-thinking argument. This argument aims to demonstrate that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in a desert sense (being praised or blamed for any thought, idea, judgment, or belief). This lack of epistemic responsibility is problematic for the naturalist. It seems to be an even worse problem, however, for the exhaustive divine determinist because not only would humanity not stand in a position to be blamed for any of our thoughts and beliefs, but it also surfaces a “problem of epistemic evil”, which can be raised against the knowledge of God, the rationality of humans, and the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Keywords: epistemic responsibility; libertarian freedom; determinism; deliberation

1. Introduction

Intrinsic value/disvalue and objective, normative duties, oughts/ought-nots are central to at least three areas of life: morality, rationality, and aesthetics. If one violates a moral ought, one is morally guilty. If one violates a rational ought, one is irrational. If one violates an aesthetic ought, one produces something ugly, or at least not as beautiful as if that ought had not been violated. In this paper, our focus is on rationality. We begin with what is called the free-thinking argument. After presenting and defending it, we draw out some important implications that follow from it.1

The free-thinking argument (hereafter, FTA) is part of a family of arguments that have been developed by thinkers such as C. S. Lewis, J. P. Moreland (<1987> 2000), Alvin Plantinga,2 and Jim Slagle. It has evolved over the past decade as it has adapted to criticism. The big ideas behind the argument, however, have not changed.

The FTA seeks to discredit the thesis of determinism. Determinism is the idea that antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate all events or effects (often referred to as “causal determinism”). Exhaustive divine determinism (hereafter, EDD) is the idea that God necessitates all events—especially all things about humanity, which would include all desires, thoughts, intuitions, beliefs, actions, behaviors, evaluations, and judgments. It is important to note that antecedent conditions are either sufficient or insufficient to necessitate all effects.3 With determinism in mind, the FTA is typically aimed at naturalism and the complete determinism of humanity which seems to be entailed by this view.4 Naturalism, as Alvin Plantinga describes, is the view that neither God nor anything like God exists.5 On other occasions, however, the argument is aimed at Calvinists who affirm EDD.6

Click Here to read the entire paper!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton