3 Lies Students Believe About Freedom That Will Ruin Their Lives

Our culture worships freedom. The only problem is that real freedom doesn’t mean what most people think it means. And the next generation of students are paying the price because they are being robbed of the life they are really after.

True happiness–“flourishing”–is only possible if students are able to break free from the lies and embrace genuine freedom.

3 Lies Students Believe About Freedom

(1) My choices only affect me. “You can do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt someone.” This slogan is everywhere! Our culture perpetuates this lie but you need to know there are several fatal flaws with this way of thinking. First and foremost it (more…)

Christians Never Outgrow the Gospel

Do Christians ever outgrow the Gospel? I mean isn’t the Gospel what you heard in Sunday school or vacation Bible school when you were a kid? Surely we are beyond that now right? Nope–not if we really understand how wonderful and radical the Gospel truly is.

(more…)

What is the Free Will Defense to the Problem of Evil?

Is the existence of evil a good reason not believe in God?

One of the most formidable challenges to the Christian faith is the problem of evil and suffering. In reality, there are actually several “problems” or versions of this objection. There are emotional and personal versions, but those are not the subject of this post.

evil_plantingaWhat I want to do is briefly share a response to the logical problem of evil that I have found to be very helpful and satisfying. Here is the essence of the objection: It is logically contradictory for the Christian God and evil to coexist.

In other words, it would be like a saying a square circle exists or a married bachelor exists. Once you properly define, explain, and understand the terms then it is obviously impossible.

All that is needed to dispose of the charge of logical incoherence is to supply a logically possible, morally sufficient reason that a good God would allow evil (i.e., a defense). Note, this doesn’t have to be the actual reason God may have. Merely a possible one.

In response to the logical problem of evil, notable philosopher Alvin Plantinga describes such a possible reason in his famous Free Will Defense:

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; and they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. (From God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga)

It is widely recognized by professional philosophers that the Free Will Defense has “solved” the logical problem.

To read more about this fascinating discussion check out God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga.

If you found this post helpful, then you would enjoy this short video I shot discussing the problem of evil.

Listen to the latest Think Christianly podcast: Subscribe with iTunes RSS

Enjoy what you read today? Never miss a post! Sign up to receive my blog updates directly in your inbox.

I came across an interesting article from the Acton Institute on Wikipedia

“Ten years ago this month, Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales hired Larry Sanger to develop an online encyclopedia. You may have never heard of that project, titled “Nupedia,” but you’ve probably heard of the site that emerged from its ashes. Wikipedia is not only one of the most successful initiatives in the history of the Web but also a shining example of the potential of human cooperation.

Wikipedia sprouted in the fertile soil of freedom and possibility that characterized the early days of the Internet. Andrew Lih tells the story in The Wikipedia Revolution (2009). Wales, a principal of the technology company Bomis, perceived the potential demand for an online encyclopedia and launched his new venture to fill that need. Nupedia was soon abandoned because it was the result of conventional thinking—a traditional encyclopedia model applied to the Internet. When this dawned on Wales and Sanger, the resulting creative spark ignited the Wikipedia revolution. Putting an encyclopedia on the Web should mean not merely a change in the location of encyclopedia content, they realized: the new technology could instead transform the entire process of content production and publication. This was the insight that set Wikipedia apart and soon attracted millions of people across the world to its community.

The Wikipedia experiment was an exercise in entrepreneurship, and demonstrates that the impetus for life-enhancing innovation is not merely monetary success. Wales and Sanger were motivated by a desire to promote learning and empower people. In their view, the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge should be democratic: let anyone with access to a computer participate in the process.

Traditionally, the collection and presentation of the world’s accumulated knowledge in the encyclopedia format was a jealously guarded prerogative of the gatekeepers of established publishing and academic institutions. This method had its advantages: consistency, careful review processes, and adherence to accepted standards of scholarship.

It also had its drawbacks. The updating and release of new material necessarily occurred at a glacial pace. Originality and dissent were frowned upon and non-mainstream perspectives could only find their way to print slowly, if at all. There were intrinsic limitations of scale and scope, put in place by the economics of the editorial and print process: only major topics deemed to be of interest to large numbers of people could justify the resources put into covering any given entry.

The philosophy of its founders shaped Wikipedia and supplied its unique sensibility, overturning the conventional constraints of established encyclopedias. Most critically, Wales and Sanger possessed a fundamental faith in humanity. Wikipedia is not about technology, Wales wrote in the foreword to Lih’s book, “it’s about people… it’s about trusting people, it’s about encouraging people to do good.” Detractors believed that permitting open editing of web content, or “crowdsourcing,” would result in chaos. Bias, error, and distortion would be rife. How could the anonymous interaction of the Web, they wondered, result in reliably accurate information on a wide range of topics?

But Wikipedia’s bet on the potential of free human interaction in an online community paid off. By 2008, it boasted more than 2 million articles in English, and millions more in some 250 other languages. By almost any measure it was a spectacular success.

The model pioneered by Wikipedia is not flawless. One might…” For more…