God, Freedom, and Evil

This reminds me of a philosophy class I had in college that required you to use analytical logic. It's about as much fun as diagramming sentences but ultimately leads you to well-reasoned answers. So, I would love to give it five-stars because of Plantinga's conclusions regarding the existence of God and why having faith in Him is solidly backed by philosophical reasoning in the traditional style of philosophers, wherein statements read like mathematical equations. However, even though it is a short book, it is exhausting to read. Or rather re-read - because I had to reexamine paragraphs repeatedly to derive meaning. Great exercise for the mind though.

The simple and direct use of logical propositions on two specific questions, the problem of evil, and the ontological proof for the existence of God.The author is scrupulous, fair, and pithy. As a result, the reader can generally follow the arguments, with some pause from time to time to do a simple moment of thought. The honesty of the arguments avoids the off-putting tone that some authors can fall into...Engaging with these arguments is not easy. This book makes things accessible. I am entirely convinced that the intellect is a partial pathway to understanding these questions, and a useful partial pathway, at best. Given that conviction on my part, I think that this book is an excellent mini-workbook for a questioning reader.

Platinga's refutation of the Problem of Evil alone is worth the price of this book. For those unfamiliar with logic, he walks carefully though the argument and its refutation with clarity. Of course, refuting the argument does not prove the existence of the God portrayed in the argument, but it puts the argument to rest completely in favor of the theist.

Since I was taking a class on the problem of evil this semester, I wanted to finally read Alvin Plantinga’s classic work, God, Freedom, and Evil (1974). Though it’s a short book at only 112 pages, its philosophical depth focused on logical analysis requires slow, intentional reading. The book begins with the question, “Why does God permit evil?” and attempts to show that it is not inconsistent to affirm that God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, and evil exists. Plantinga articulates the Free Will Defense to account for what God’s reason(s) for permitting evil might possibly be, which is to say that the possibility exists that “God could not have created a universe containing moral good without creating one that also contained moral evil.”It is usually acknowledged that Plantinga’s conclusion is true: ”The Free Will Defense shows that the existence of God is compatible, both logically and probabilistically, with the existence of evil; thus, it solves the main philosophical problem of evil.” What this means is that other kinds of problems of evil must carry objections or personal struggles. He writes, ”The theist may find a religious problem of evil; in the presence of his own suffering or that of someone near to him he may find it difficult to maintain what he takes to be the proper attitude towards God. Faced with great personal suffering or misfortune, he may be tempted to rebel against God, to shake his fist in God’s face, or even to give up belief in God altogether. But this is a problem of a different dimension. Such a problem calls, not for philosophical enlightenment, but for pastoral care.”

Atheists tend to dismiss the idea of God as just a more sophisticated version of the worship of idols. Plating a demonstrates that there is no logical objection to the existence of God. He shows that the concept "if God is omniscient and omnipotent and morally perfect, there could not be evil in the world". This criticism of God is presented by atheists as a logical argument. Platinga shows that this criticism is based on faulty reasoning.The book covers a number of similar statements. However, be ready to ccb oncentrate it is a formally argued set of logical premises reaching interesting conclusions.

Truly the best work on the subject. CS Lewis’ The Problem of Pain would be the primer to this, in my opinion. Masterful work that should be owned by anyone seeking a better understanding of this issue.

There are other reviews who better explain why this book is a good read, but in short... His free will defense (not a theodicy, brilliant!) demonstrates that God's omnipotence, complete goodness and the existence of evil are not incompatible. Mind you this a philosophical argument for the so-called problem of evil, Plantinga himself states that this book is not for a pastoral response. The second part of the book discusses natural theology. Plantinga, I think, does a good job with the Ontological Argument for God. I used to think that it was the most fallacious argument for God, but now I think it is good argument (especially if coupled with William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument).

For philosophical heavy weight lifting this book is amazingly clear and straightforward. Plantinga makes it look easy. Essential reading for the philosophy student.

I really enjoyed this book, i felt beyond the topic it was a very good primer on how to think philosophically. The concept is very good using the free will defence but extending to counter other arguments. I did feel that this dealt with human evil very well, but i believe more could have been done on natural evil

Using logical equations to explain good, bad and the existence of God is not the best way to convince the reader of the existence of God and justify evil on earth. Aslo, It's very hard to read this book on Kindle because of the several references to equations wrote on previous pages of the book. Better to read this book on paper format, if you insist.

This is a very well written book but not accessible for everyone, no matter reader interest in the subject matter and the approach taken in it. The logic, though lineated progressively, is still difficult to follow. This book is only for those philosophically trained and interested in how it intersects with theology. Well-argued but would be over the heads of most readers.

Excellent explanation of the Free Will Defense.