In deploying the argument from evil, unbelievers contend that if God could create a world in which everyone does right, then he ought to do so. Some Christians respond by invoking the freewill defense. However, even Christians who subscribe to libertarian freewill believe in the possibility (indeed, actuality) of a world in which everyone freely does right. They just postpone that for the world to come.
Admittedly, that may be inconsistent with their philosophical commitments. It's just that their eschatology commits them to a position at odds with their philosophical commitments. So they affirm a contradiction.
It's instructive to compare this atheist complaint with film and TV critics. Critics dislike movies and TV dramas in which the good guys are too good. They prefer characters that are morally grey. Characters that undergo character development. They find morally pristine characters simplistic and boring. Makes you wonder if they really want a world in which everyone does right.
At the other extreme we have films and TV dramas in which all the characters are morally repellent. Some may be worse than others, but all of them are pretty bad. It's just a difference of degree.
I think Christians like characters who are like them. We like characters who struggle with sin. Characters who are tempted by sin. Characters who are striving to do the right thing, sometimes fail, but repent and continue striving to do right.
Compare this to an android. An android isn't even tempted to commit sin. It can't feel temptation. Because it isn't human, it isn't drawn to things that humans find enticing.
As a result, an android can never be a hero. Even if it always does the right thing, it's not a virtuous being. Doing right is effortless for the android, because there's no inner conflict. The android doesn't find evil appealing for the same reason it doesn't find goodness appealing. It's not in his makeup.
Now, resisting temptation is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. In the world to come, the saints won't find sin alluring. But that's in part because, in this life, we've acquired a degree of moral fortitude. And we've experienced the consequences of sin.
Untested decency is highly unstable. Someone may be decent simply because his decency has never been put to the test. And the moment his decency is tested, his moral shell collapses.
Moral formation, strength of character, is the result of experience in the face of moral challenges.
I think Christians like characters who are like them. We like characters who struggle with sin. Characters who are tempted by sin. Characters who are striving to do the right thing, sometimes fail, but repent and continue striving to do right.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of when the movie "First Knight" came out (1995). I absolutely hated it. As a Christian I despised Richard Gere's scripted portrayal of Lancelot who was a self-centered, arrogant, manipulating seducer of a young innocent girl, who also betrayed his friend, benefactor and King almost with seeming forethought and premeditation. While watching the movie I couldn't help but compare that Lancelot with the one portrayed in the movie Excalibur. Now that portrayal was of an idealistic, chivalrous man of virtue, honor and Christian morals who struggled against temptation but lost. After he gave in, he eventually got convicted, repented and became a monk or priest. I don't want to give out any more spoilers for the sake of those who haven't seen the movie. But it's one of my all time favorite movies despite the paganism, sexually explicit scenes/themes (e.g. rape, incest etc.), violence etc.
I'm thinking of Arthurian legends because I finished reading C.S. Lewis' book That Hideous Strength last week. It's definitely not as good as the first two in his Space Trilogy (which I read 20 years ago). Though, I did find an interesting link that compiles quotes and references in THS with explanations HERE.