Free Will and Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

Free Will

Throughout the course of human history a question has been frequently asked and heavily debated – the question of whether or not human beings have free will. During my extremely brief existence, I have searched for an answer I believe to be correct and have often struggled to come to a satisfactory answer. What I have come to realize however is that regardless of whether or not I am a “free being,” I must still act as if I am one.

Why must we act the same way regardless of the truth? Well, even if free will doesn’t exist we must act like it does so that we can live in society. If we don’t act as if free will exists, then how do we punish or reward individuals that commit bad or good acts? If we don’t believe in free will then I can rob a bank and if I’m caught, I can simply say that whomever/whatever (be it my environment, my genes, or God) is control made me do it. A puppet can only do what its puppeteer commands it to do. In order to live as civilized human beings we must believe in free will or civilization will crumble. We must accept personal accountability in order to function correctly (or what we view as correctly) and that’s what acting as if free will exists allows.

As I continue on in life I hope to come to a better understanding of free will. I see obstacles in believing either side which makes me wonder if the answer to the question isn’t a simple yes or no. Perhaps I need to ask different questions in order to find the elusive answer I believe is out there.

Augustine on the Existence, yet Nonexistence, of Evil

“God saw everything that he had made and indeed, it was very good.” (From Genesis 1:31) As one finishes reading the first chapter of Genesis, he or she is left with the knowledge that everything God created was good. He or she is then left to wonder how evil can be explained. We see and recognize it in our lives but yet how can it exist when God, who created all things, is good and created all things good? Augustine’s answer to this question was that “nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity.” Evil as the absence of (a greater) good is similar to a hole being the absence of ground or dark being the absence of light. One can’t have holes in the air because there simply isn’t any ground there.

I believe that Augustine is correct in his belief that everything that exists is good. I agree with his reasoning on this position, which goes something like this: Everything that exists or has being was created by God. God does not and cannot (because He is good) create anything that is not good. Therefore, everything that exists is good. If the two premises stated are true, then the conclusion must be as well because his reasoning is valid.

In relation to this, what I find interesting (although I’m sure that either there is an explanation for it or I am mistaken on the Reformed position– I’m not from a Reformed background) is that the Reformed Church believes in both predestination and Augustine’s view on evil. I don’t understand how Augustine’s view on evil can work without free will. (Yes, free will and predestination aren’t the same thing, but I would argue that they are extremely interconnected.) Augustine’s view would seem to indicate that the act of turning from a greater good to a lesser good is what evil is. We can’t choose evil because it is not a thing, but we can choose a lesser good and turn away from God by doing so. This means that the source of evil is in the free will of humans. If free will is cut out of the picture then what is the source of evil?

One other interesting, relevant thought is the idea that no moral growth will occur in the next life of the New Heaven and the New Earth. I would argue that God allows free will so that humans can grow and develop as they face struggles with evil. If in the next life no evil exists, as scripture would seem to indicate, then there can’t be any more moral development because we won’t be allowed to choose between a greater and lesser good. It would seem that there is an urgency to morally grow in this life because once we die we’re done growing. This seems to indicate a loss (one could argue, in a sense, by choice) of our free will in the next life because our free will appears to be the source of evil.

Whether or not anything I have written in the previous two paragraphs is true or logical (although I would hope there is some truth and reason scattered in), I still think it’s safe to say that Augustine’s view on good and existence is not only interesting in itself, but also for all of the other thoughts that can spring up by its examination and discussion.

A Few Thoughts on Death

As one of life’s two certainties (at least according to Benjamin Franklin) one would think that human beings would spend more time contemplating death. Instead, many (primarily young) individuals spend what (little) time they do think, pondering questions and situations that either are unlikely to or simply never arise. While these musings aren’t necessarily bad or unproductive, as they can lead to self-discovery, it is still quite odd that humans too often neglect thinking about the only event guaranteed to happen after they are born. I suppose one may conclude that humans are afraid of the “mystery” (or unknown) of death and therefore go into the common state of denial. When society finally does see the reality of death, often having to be shocked into doing so by horrific events such as September 11^th, no one – not even groups like Christians – can come to a consensus on what exactly happens when one finally “kicks the bucket.” (As one who finally does discuss death may call it in an attempt to euphonize the topic.) Due to this befuddlement, over the course of history humans have come up with a number of theories attempting to explain, as some might call it, “what lies beyond the grave.”

I believe that the correct view of death to be the conscious intermediate state theory since this theory best fits with my interpretation of Scripture concerning death, life-after-death, and (as NT Wright would call it) life after “life-after-death.” Why? First of all, I believe humans have both mental and physical components. After humans’ physical bodies die, their souls/minds remain conscious and are sent to heaven if Jesus knew them. (Matthew 7 - I use this particular terminology because it is the simplest description with, what I think most would call, uncontroversial language.) Eventually, after an unknown - to all but God - period of time, there will be a resurrection, for those that Jesus knew, returning them to their physical bodies, in which everything in the Earth, including their bodies, “will be made new.” Heaven and Earth will be joined together in a new reality.

Comparing my aforementioned ideas to the different views on death, it is fairly easy to see which view fits most closely with my own. To begin with, the three materialistic view of death (extinction, extinction/re-creation, and resuscitation) can all be eliminated from the list of potential matches because they contradict my belief in dualism. Next, let’s eliminate the Greek view because it clashes with our physical bodies being resurrected. Reincarnation can be thrown out too because it as well clashes with our souls being returned to our remade physical bodies. Annihilation too can be scratched of the list of possibilities because I believe those not sent to heaven and eventually resurrected will be sent to hell rather than completely destroyed. Finally, immediate re-embodiment can be eliminated since it doesn’t fit with my beliefs of souls temporarily residing in heaven, or with our return to our physical bodies and the renewal of earth. So, with all of these views easily being seen as contradictory to my own, what views are left? The remaining views are soul sleep, and conscious intermediate state.

To decide between these final two theories, let me state one more belief. In the gap between death and resurrection I believe our souls will exhibit some level of consciousness (among other reasons, Luke 23:43 would seem rather odd if this was not true). Therefore, the soul sleep view can be eliminated and I am left with the conscious intermediate state, since it is the only view that does not contradict any of my stated beliefs.

Does it really matter what I, or anyone for that matter, believe about death? Well, I’ll leave for you to decide. Sure death will come whether or not it is contemplated and any sort of knowledge of what occurs at death won’t directly help. However, the ramifications of this knowledge are incredibly important. No matter what view of death one subscribes to, the implications of that view will directly impact the way one lives his or her life. So no, you don’t have to think about death. However, if you don’t think about death, then how are you living?

How Important are Pleasure and Pain? Which, if Either, is Ultimate?

Epicurus’ idea that pleasure and pain constitute good and bad captured my attention the most. His belief that what is good is pleasurable and what’s bad is painful is very interesting to examine. Looking at the idea from a physical perspective, most humans realize that when something is wrong with the body, one often (although not always) experiences pain. For instance, if an individual has a cavity, his or her tooth hurts. If someone has a broken leg, then pain will be experienced in the leg that is broken. A link can be seen between things not working properly (bad) and the perception of pain. Likewise, the same can be said about things working properly and the feeling of good. However, far too often humans have to experience pain before they are willing to say that the body operating normally is pleasurable. I remember as a child being sick with the flu and thinking about how great it felt to not have the flu and have my body operating normally (good). This fits well with Epicurus’ thought that pain is the absence of pleasure.

While there undeniably is some kind of link between pleasure and pain with good and bad, I don’t think that good or bad are determined by what is pleasurable or painful. I would argue that holding the previously mentioned view leads to the belief of moral relativism. Pain and pleasure are not experienced in the same way by any two individuals. Since pain and pleasure vary from person to person, then what is good, and what is bad, must then vary from person to person. For instance, many people understand murder to create pain. (In this case let’s only think about emotional pain to the person committing the murder. Completely forget about the person being killed.) Therefore, murder is bad because it is painful. However, some individuals derive pleasure from killing another human being (think of certain serial killers). To them then, murder is good because it is pleasurable. Murder being bad for some while good for others would appear to be a case of moral relativism.

Despite some disagreements I have with Epicurus, I strongly support his idea that, pain is the absence of pleasure. I think most people would agree that heaven is good/pleasurable while hell is bad/painful. Christians believe that God is good and is the ultimate source of our pleasure. So, in this comparison of heaven versus hell, which defines the other (or which is ultimate)? Well, we know heaven to describe being in the direct presence of God (while this isn’t the best definition it generates the point) while hell is the absence of God. Expanding these definitions we can say that heaven is pleasurable while hell is the complete absence of pleasure. So, it would appear that pleasure is ultimate thus leading to the conclusion that pain is the absence of pleasure.