Before You Ask

I meant to post this for Memorial Day, but didn't get around to it.

As a veteran of two fronts of a war (or of two wars, take your pick), I am often asked a startlingly insensitive question: "Did you ever kill anyone?" In the first place, this betrays a shocking ignorance of the structure of the military: only about 1 in 10 military jobs carry a person into direct combat. So most of us never even fire our rifles. Some didn't even carry one. Yet all of us put ourselves in harm's way, and all of us served in important capacities. Asking this question implies that the only *real* military job is a direct-combat job, which is demeaning to the 90% of us who were not in such roles. So before you even consider asking the question, "Did you kill anyone?" think to ask, "What did you do in the service?"

But the more important issue is this: killing, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how justified it may be, is intensely personal, and intensely distressing. No one *wants* to kill--no one sane, anyway. And doing so is one of the most psychologically damaging things that a person can do. Asking a member of the combat arms if he's ever killed anyone would be something like asking a grieving widow, "What was it like the first time you saw your husband's dead body?" That's a grossly inappropriate question that we would never dare to utter. Yet many, many people have asked me if I've killed. It is only because I have not that I have been able to answer without deep distress. If I had, I imagine it would be a extraordinarily distressing experience--killing ought never, never to be reduced to the level of casual conversation.

I don't know if you will be tempted to ask that question of a veteran. But if you are--or if you know someone who would--you might consider reflecting on the poem "Sadiq," by Iraq war veteran Brian Turner:

It is a condition of wisdom in the archer to be patient

because when the arrow leaves the bow, it returns no more.
~Sa’di

It should make you shake and sweat,
nightmare you, strand you in a desert
of irrevocable desolation, the consequences
seared into the vein, no matter what adrenaline
feeds the muscle its courage, no matter
what god shines down on you, no matter
what crackling pain and anger
you carry in your fists, my friend,
it should break your heart to kill.

On Progress

I recently listened to a TED talk in which the speaker made numerous references to the "progress" that he perceives as being attendant to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Now, I'm as big a fan of science and the products of science as the next guy, but I have to wonder about this idea of progress.
The main idea, when scientists and laymen talk about "progress" is not mereadvancement in understanding (e.g. the shift in understanding to a dynamic view of the universe from the static view) but advancement in the quality of human life that comes as a result of scientific knowledge. An obvious candidate for progress of this sort would be modern medicine, or, perhaps, communication technologies. And again, I am as much in awe of these as anybody else. But the notion of progress also seems to include the idea of not just improving the quality of life, but of solving humanity's basic problems. Medicine serves as a good illustration: it's not just that we are enabled to live longer and healthier, but that that is a solution to a deep and persistent problem (that being, I suppose, short and unhealthy lives).
Furthermore, the idea of progress seems to have a utopian dimension; one might even say an eschatological one. The idea here is that given enough time, science will solveall of humanity's persistent problems. It seems to be the case that people generally think that given enough time, science can explain any phenomenon. And if that's the case, then the improvements to human life via science will ultimately solve all those problems.
I recently listened to a story on NPR about advancements in the science of hearing.Hearing loss occurs when the sensory hair cells in the inner ear die--and in humans, they don't grow back (as they do for some other animals). The experts on this program, though, talked about research being done to try to get human sensory hair cells to regrow. And it occurred to me what that would mean. Just imagine: if human sensory hair cells could be made to regrow, then my 92-year-old grandfather, who suffers from severe hearing loss resulting from military service and years around farm machinery, would be able to hear every bit as well as he could when he was a 18-year-old man! Just think: the problem of hearing loss might be permanently solved!
But as I marveled at that idea, I asked myself, "What will this accomplish?" Certainly, if scientists could accomplish that goal, it would be amazing. We'd have made a real advance in our understanding of human hearing, and would have the ability to solve one of humanity's persistent problems. But the trouble is that our real problems, the ones that are in most desperate need of solving, seem to be those that are completely beyond scientific solution.
Consider, for example, that the 20th century, which saw incredible scientific advances, more perhaps than any other era of human history, was also the bloodiest century in all of human history. Between the first and second world wars alone, 85 million people were killed. Destruction on that scale is only possible with the advances in scientific understanding that also produced, for example, penicillin. 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, a sum only possible with the implementation of industrial engineering, the same advances that also produced, for example, modern means of transportation.
It seems, then, that we are every bit as prone to deploy the fruit of scientific advancement in the pursuit of destruction as in the quest for the betterment of humanity. As with any tool, the sciences are wielded by human beings. And as with any tool, the sciences can be used both to help and to hurt humankind.
In the end, it seems to me that hatred, jealousy, spite, wrath, discrimination, ambition and all of humanity's other less noble impulses are the real culprits to blame for human suffering (excepting, of course, the vagaries of the natural world). If the darker side of our nature is to blame for the misery of the human condition, I have a hard time seeing how scientific advancements will ultimately liberate us from our tortured condition. For all the wonderful products of science and technology, human suffering persists. If these are mere window dressing to a drama that continues to be played out unabated, then I have to conclude that the ultimate solution to our problems will not be found in "progress," but must be looked for elsewhere.

July is National Cell Phone Courtesy Month!

In honor of National Cell Phone Courtesy Month, Jacqueline Whitmore, one of the nation's foremost experts on etiquette and protocol, offers these steps for wireless phone users who want to avoid offending others:

1. Be all there. When you're in a meeting, performance, courtroom or other busy area, let calls go to voicemail to avoid a disruption. In some instances, turning your phone off may be the best solution.
   
   
2. Keep it private. Be aware of your surroundings and avoid discussing private or confidential information in public. You never know who may be in hearing range.
   
   
3. Keep your cool. Don't display anger during a public call. Conversations that are likely to be emotional should be held where they will not embarrass or intrude on others.
   
   
4. Learn to vibe. Use your wireless phone's silent or vibration settings in public places such as business meetings, religious services, schools, restaurants, theaters or sporting events so that you do not disrupt your surroundings.
   
   
5. Avoid "cell yell." Remember to use your regular conversational tone when speaking on your wireless phone. People tend to speak more loudly than normal and often don't recognize how distracting they can be to others.
   
   
6. Follow the rules. Some places, such as hospitals or airplanes, restrict or prohibit the use of mobile phones, so adhere to posted signs and instructions. Some jurisdictions may also restrict mobile phone use in public places.
   
   
7. Excuse yourself. If you are expecting a call that can't be postponed, alert your companions ahead of time and excuse yourself when the call comes in; the people you are with should take precedence over calls you want to make or receive.
   
   
8. Send a message. Use Text Messaging to send and receive messages without saying a single word.
   
   
9. Watch and listen discreetly. New multimedia applications such as streaming video and music are great ways to stay informed and access the latest entertainment. However, adjust the volume based on your surroundings in much the same way that you would adjust your ringer volume. Earphones are a great way to avoid distracting others in public areas.
   
   
10. Alert silently. When using your phone's walkie-talkie feature, send the person you're trying to reach a Call Alert before starting to speak. If you're around other people, turn off your phone's external speaker and use the vibration setting to minimize any disturbance and to respect your contact's privacy.
    
    
11. Be a good Samaritan. Use your cell phone to help others. According to CTIA, The Wireless Association, more than 224,000 calls a day are made to 911 and other emergency numbers by mobile phone users who report crimes and potentially life-threatening emergencies.
    
    
12. Focus on driving. Practice wireless responsibility while driving. Don't make or answer calls while in heavy traffic or in hazardous driving conditions. Place calls when your vehicle is not moving, and use a hands-free device to help focus attention on safety. Always make safety your most important call.

Determinism

I don't think that many people subscribe to this blog, so I'm not sure who will even notice that I've posted something.  The trouble is, this is just a preliminary post, and it will contain quite a good deal of technical philosophical language.  But I do need to get some of this down before I forget it.

I'm reading Richard Taylor's "Freedom and Determinism" to prepare to grade some tests for two sections of Philosophy 201.  Taylor makes the interesting observation that causal necessity is not the same thing as logical necessity.   Causal necessity seems to imply something's being impossible given some set of natural laws and antecedent conditions.  For example, "It is impossible for a person to live after having been decapitated," really means, "Given the realities of human physiology, a person's decapitation cannot fail to bring about that person's death."  So the word "impossible" applies only to the actual world and its laws and conditions.  

It is quite another thing to claim that it is logically impossible for a person to survive decapitation.  That is because the word "impossible" in this sentence applies not only to this, the actual world, but to all possible worlds as well.  That being the case, the proposition, "it is logically impossible for a person to survive decapitation," is patently false.  It seems that there must be at least some possible world in which a person could survive decapitation.  How about the possible world in which a person's brain is in their chest, and the head merely contains sensory organs?  Decapitation in that world (given adequate medical attention, of course!) means the loss of 4 out 5 senses, but not death.

This suggests to me a conclusion that seems obvious, but has some startling implications: there is at least one possible world in which determinism does not obtain.  That is, there is at least one possible world in which it is not the case that given any phenomena, that phenomena is the result of the operation of the laws of nature on antecedent conditions.  That this is so seems plain: I can see no reason to suppose that determinism obtains in all possible worlds.  What of the possible world in which some higher power controls every phenomena down to the smallest detail?  Is it not the case that in this world phenomena are caused by that power and not by the laws of nature operating on antecedent conditions?  What of the world without natural laws, where things operate together in completely random ways?  I do not dispute that is difficult to imagine what such a world would be like, but I can see no reason to suppose that it is impossible that there is such a world.

Now, if it is the case that determinism is not logically necessary, and if that entails that there is at least one possible world in which determinism does not obtain, then we can legitimately ask the question, "How do we know that this, the actual world, is not such a world?"  Admittedly, this question must seem nearly nonsensical given the commitment to determinism which seems so prevalent among philosophers.  But unless determinism is logically necessary--and it is not--then it is a legitimate question to ask.  And it is at this point that things become very interesting to me.

I can see no way, at the moment, to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that this world is a world such that given any phenomena, that phenomena is a product solely of natural laws operating on antecedent conditions.  There are certain presuppositions that I might hold that would dispose me to this sort of belief, of course.  If I am a strict materialist, for instance (meaning that I believe that only physical things exist), then I am disposed to accept the determinist account.  If I firmly believe that the empirical method is the only way to know anything, then perhaps I might be more inclined to accept the determinist position.  But the take away here is that it is not at all certain that this is one of the possible worlds in which strict determinism obtains.  Furthermore, it appears to me that any attempt to prove this would beg the question (certainly the scientific empiricist's reply seems that it would).  

What I am left with, then, are two interlocking conclusions: given that there is some possible world in which determinism does not obtain, it remains an open question whether this, the actual world, is such a world.  And if it is an open question whether determinism obtains, it will not do to simply assume that it is; an argument need be put forth.  But, in at least my preliminary thinking on the matter, I can see no argument for determinism that is not hopelessly dependent on some other presupposition to provide the heavy lifting in the argument (e.g. materialism).  

The trouble, though, is that the presupposition of materialism is just that: a presupposition.  Attempts to prove this doctrine will founder on the shoals of question-begging: asserting that one has found no scientific evidence for non-material entities appears to me to be the height of question-begging.  Similarly, attempting to prove that empirical observation is the only way to know anything seems doomed to fail, since if one believes that empirical observation is the only way to know anything, one will go about proving this assertion via empirical observation, which assumes the validity of the very thing in question.

The upshot of all this is that determinism seems to be a thesis that works for so many in virtue of the fact that it coheres with what they already believe, and not because it is the best thesis to explain the data at hand.  Indeed, the very fact that I believe that I have a choice as to whether to continue writing this post or to get up and do something else shows at the very least that I have an intuition that runs contrary to the determinist thesis.  Why, then, is it asserted as dogma by all but a very few within the philosophical community?  I suggest that this is because determinism is the account of the world that best coheres with what they prefer to believe, and not because determinism is the account that best describes the world as it is.

Best. Disclaimer. EVER.

So, I was cruising another site and came across a thread with the same title as this post (though in fairness, I'm stealing). The thread gave a web address for a disclaimer for the Nelson Rock Preserve, "a privately owned and funded organization dedicated to the preservation of Nelson Rocks as a natural, scenic and recreational resource." Below is the text of the disclaimer in its entirety.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARNING

Nature is unpredictable and unsafe. Mountains are dangerous. Many books have been written about these dangers, and there's no way we can list them all here. Read the books.

Nelson Rocks Preserve is covered in steep terrain with loose, slippery and unstable footing. The weather can make matters worse. Sheer drops are everywhere. You may fall, be injured or die. There are hidden holes. You could break your leg. There are wild animals, which may be vicious, poisonous or carriers of dread diseases. These include poisonous snakes and insects. Plants can be poisonous as well. We don't do anything to protect you from any of this. We do not inspect, supervise or maintain the grounds, rocks, cliffs or other features, natural or otherwise.

Real dangers are present even on trails. Trails are not sidewalks. They can be, and are, steep, slippery and dangerous. Trail features made or enhanced by humans, such as steps, walls and railings (if any) can break, collapse, or otherwise fail catastrophically at any time. We don't promise to inspect, supervise or maintain them in any way. They may be negligently constructed or repaired. They are unsafe, period. Live with it or stay away.

Stay on the trails whenever possible. The terrain, in addition to being dangerous, is surprisingly complex. You may get lost. Carry food, water and first aid supplies at all times.

Rocks and other objects can fall from the cliffs. They can tumble down slopes. This can happen naturally, or be caused by people above you, such as climbers. Rocks of all sizes, including huge boulders, can shift, move or fall with no warning. Use of helmets (available at entrance station) is advised for anyone approaching the rock formations. They won't save you if you get hit by something big or on another part of your body. A whole rock formation might collapse on you and squash you like a bug. Don't think it can't happen.

Weather can be dangerous, regardless of the forecast. Be prepared with extra clothing, including rain gear. Hypothermia, heat stroke, lightning, ice and snow, etc. can kill you. Rain can turn easy terrain into a deathtrap.

If you scramble in high places (scrambling is moving over terrain steep enough to use your hands) without proper experience, training and equipment, or allow children to do so, you are making a terrible mistake. Even if you know what you're doing, lots of things can go wrong and you may be injured or die. It happens all the time.

The Preserve does not provide rangers or security personnel. The other people in the preserve, including other visitors, our employees, agents, and guests, and anyone else who might sneak in, may be stupid, reckless, or otherwise dangerous. They may be mentally ill, criminally insane, drunk, using illegal drugs and/or armed with deadly weapons and ready to use them. We aren't necessarily going to do anything about it. We refuse to take responsibility.

If you climb, you may die or be seriously injured. This is true whether you are experienced or not, trained or not, equipped or not, though training and equipment may help. It's a fact, climbing is extremely dangerous. If you don't like it, stay at home. You really shouldn't be doing it anyway. We do not provide supervision or instruction. We are not responsible for, and do not inspect or maintain, climbing anchors (including bolts, pitons, slings, trees, etc.) As far as we know, any of them can and will fail and send you plunging to your death. There are countless tons of loose rock ready to be dislodged and fall on you or someone else. There are any number of extremely and unusually dangerous conditions existing on and around the rocks, and elsewhere on the property. We may or may not know about any specific hazard, but even if we do, don't expect us to try to warn you. You're on your own.

Rescue services are not provided by the Preserve, and may not be available quickly or at all. Local rescue squads may not be equipped for or trained in mountain rescue. If you are lucky enough to have somebody try to rescue you or treat your injuries, they may be incompetent or worse. This includes doctors and hospitals. We assume no responsibility. Also, if you decide to participate in a rescue of some other unfortunate, that's your choice. Don't do it unless you are willing to assume all risks.

By entering the Preserve, you are agreeing that we owe you no duty of care or any other duty. We promise you nothing. We do not and will not even try to keep the premises safe for any purpose. The premises are not safe for any purpose. This is no joke. We won't even try to warn you about any dangerous or hazardous condition, whether we know about it or not. If we do decide to warn you about something, that doesn't mean we will try to warn you about anything else. If we do make an effort to fix an unsafe condition, we may not try to correct any others, and we may make matters worse! We and our employees or agents may do things that are unwise and dangerous. Sorry, we're not responsible. We may give you bad advice. Don't listen to us. In short, ENTER AND USE THE PRESERVE AT YOUR OWN RISK. And have fun!

NRP Management

(For the original context, go here: http://www.nelsonrocks.org/disclaimer.html?Active=1)

Knowing and Following Jesus

I've just recently finished preaching a five-week series entitled "Knowing and Following Jesus." You can find mp3s and Powerpoint slides here: http://orc.typepad.com/sunday_series/.

Of Red Herrings and Straw Men—A Reply to Steven Carr

On 07 May 2007 I posted my term paper for a Metaphysics course I took as part of my on-going studies in philosophy. The paper, entitled Plantinga and the Problem of Evil dealt with Dr. Alvin Plantinga’s celebrated solution to the logical problem of evil. While most philosophers acknowledge Plantinga’s Free Will Defense as a successful reply to the problem, there are dissenting voices. My professor is one those dissenters, so I thought that it would be an enjoyable challenge to analyze both Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, and one of my professor’s essays on the subject. My essay, which you can find here, was the result of that work. My post went unanswered for a little over two months—and to be honest, I never expected anyone to make any comments. To my pleasant surprise, a Mr Steven Carr did just that on 16 July. Mr Carr’s comments can be found at the end of the link above. Here are Mr Carr’s comments:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Carr said...

“Now consider some state of affairs S such that in S Curley is offered—but has not accepted or rejected—a bribe. Obviously there are a great many possible worlds that include S—and in at least one of these Curley is significantly free but does no moral wrong.”

There are two possible worlds.

Let us assume God exists.

So Curley is in a situation S, which situation includes an omniscient God who infallibly knows that Curley will refuse the bribe.

If you believe in libertarian free will, there is also a situation S-prime, which is identical to S, except for one thing - the contents of God's knowledge. In S-prime , God infallibly knows that Curley will accept the bribe.

Now Plantinga declare it a fact that in both of those worlds, Curley will refuse the bribe.

This is obviously false.

The statement “God knows that if Curley is offered a bribe, he will freely choose to accept it,” is a plainly false statement. It contradicts Plantinga's libertarian free will assumptions that there are two identical worlds, differing only in the contents of God's knowledge (a world where we choose right in situation S and a world where we choose wrong)

God can actualise eithe of those two worlds. The situation is entirely symmetrical between good and evil.

If PLantinga says Curley is not significantly free in either of them, then that is a fault in his definition of an omniscient God.

“If he had, S would be actual, and Curley would have gone wrong and taken the bribe (for remember, God knows that if Curley is offered a bribe, he will freely accept it)”

God does not know that. Plantinga is pulling the wool over people's eyes.

Libertarian free will (if true), means there is a world where the counterfactual of freedom is that Curley will refuse the bribe.

Steven Carr said...

It is Christian dogma that God can, and has , created beings with free will that he knew in advance would never choose evil.

Nor does Plantinga's Molinism work (although Molinism is trivially true, granted libertarian free will and an omniscient God).

If it is part of the essence of me, that I choose evil when placed in some situations that occur in this world, then logically God can create a near-identical twin of me.

This twin behaves just like me, except on one or two occasions when I choose evil and he chooses good.

There is nothing to prevent God creating near-identical twins. My near-identical twin does not even have to be perfect. There could be circumstances in which I choose good and he chooses evil. Provided those circumstances are not actualised (and God doesn't have to actualise *every* circumstance I could logically find myself in), then there would be no problem.

So Plantinga's argument is shot to pieces.

Steven Carr said...

“Clearly there is some possible world in which Curley freely rejects the bribe—there is even at least one in which he does no moral wrong at all (and Plantinga acknowledges this). But if God actualizes that world, even weakly, Curley’s transworld depravity will be “triggered”: his S will be actual and he will go wrong with respect to his A.”

This is all just incoherent.

If the world is *defined* as being the world in which Curley refuses the bribe, then Curley will refuse the bribe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I appreciate Mr Carr’s attention to my blog, I must admit that I do not find his objections to my essay to be formidable. To be frank, I cannot find a single unifying thread running through his replies, so I am forced to reply to what I take to be his main themes.

Steven Carr, Reply One—Libertarian Freedom and Red Herrings
In his first reply, Mr Carr attacks Plantinga’s argument because of the latter's commitment to “libertarian free will.” Carr thinks that the statement, “God knows that if Curley is offered a bribe, he will freely choose to accept it” is “plainly false.” Carr thinks that the Plantinga’s commitment to libertarian free will commits him to the idea that there are only two possible worlds, one in which human beings do right and one in which humans do wrong in some situation S (which he does not define beyond God’s knowledge of Curley’s actions). Now God, Carr thinks, can actualize either of these worlds.

Unfortunately for Mr Carr's case, all this is a mere red herring. Plantinga’s Free Will Defense certainly assumes some form of libertarian freedom. But it is not clear that this undermines his free will defense. Certainly the argument includes the premise that human beings are significantly morally free (by which Plantinga means that human beings are free with respect to their actions, and that those actions are not causally determined). This may or may not be the case; but for the purposes of Plantinga’s argument libertarian freedom need only be possible—and it certainly seems to be possible. To defeat Plantinga's argument, Carr would have to show that libertarian freedom isn't even possible; and he's hardly accomplished that.

Furthermore, Mr Carr makes the assertion that if libertarian freedom obtains, then there are only two possible worlds. It is not at all clear how these two possible worlds differ—at one point Carr says they differ in terms of the contents of God’s knowledge; at another, that one is the world where human beings “choose right” in S and one in which they choose wrong (though note that Carr did not stipulate that all human beings are included in S nor even that S is a part of both possible worlds). In any event, it hardly matters how Carr characterizes the two worlds, because his basic assertion—that libertarian freedom entails that there are only two possible worlds—is false. Libertarian free will is the view that human beings aren’t constrained in any way with respect to their moral choices, that every moral choice is completely freely chosen by a moral agent, and not determined by any causal factors other than the agent’s own volition. Carr thinks that this entails that there are only two possible worlds. But it is not at all clear that such entailment obtains! If Mr Carr wants to claim that libertarian freedom is incompatible with Plantinga’s free will defense, he is going to have to justify the claim that libertarian freedom entails only two possible worlds, because it is far from clear just why libertarian freedom would constrain the number and nature of possible worlds. In fact, it seems to me that just the opposite is the case.

Consider the case of Adam, a tourist in Las Vegas. Adam is playing blackjack; Bill is his dealer, and Charlie is playing the position to Adam’s left. During play, just as Charlie is pulling out his wallet to pay for more chips, Bill has a heart attack. Charlie, a medical doctor, abandons his wallet on the table, and rushes to Bill’s aid. This leaves Adam with at least four choices that I can see. (1) He can steal Bill’s wallet and leave. (2) He can steal the chips on the table and leave. (3) He can steal the chips and the wallet and leave. (4) He can ignore the chips and the wallet, and call for help. If one subscribes to libertarian freedom, all choices are possible for Adam. His will is not constrained in any way with respect to what choice he will make. So it seems to be the case that there are not just two possible worlds but four: one in which Adam chooses (1), one in which he chooses (2), and likewise for (3) and (4). And when one considers how very many choices all the people in the world have to make, and how very many options they face in making those decisions, it seems clear that there are far, far more possible worlds than the two that Mr Carr proposes--to say nothing of the possible worlds in which there are no people at all!

Mr Carr makes much of the implications of libertarian free will; but libertarian freedom does not have the entailments that he thinks it does! Either Mr Carr misunderstands the implications of libertarian freedom, or he misunderstands the role of freedom of will in Plantinga’s free will defense, or he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of possible worlds. In any event his analysis of all three is wrong, so his first reply hardly presents a problem to Plantinga’s solution to the logical problem of evil.

Carr might be able to attack libertarian freedom in order to undermine Plantinga’s argument. In order to do that, he will have to come to an accurate understanding of libertarian free will. But over and above this, Plantinga doesn’t need his argument to be true—he only needs it to be possibly true. So if Mr Carr is to employ an attack on libertarian freedom in an effort to refute Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, he will have to show not only that libertarianism is false, but that it is necessarily false—that it is, that it is not even possibly true.

It turns out that all this is a red herring—Mr Carr employs a scattershot approach to defeating Plantinga’s argument in which he makes grand assertions (“This is obviously false”) and dubious claims (“Libertarian free will (if true) means there is a world where the counterfactual of freedom is that Curley will refuse the bribe”) which do not actually address Plantinga’s argument, but which only serve to distract from the issue at hand. But let us not allow Mr Carr to distract us from what is at issue: Plantinga’s Free Will Defense.

Steven Carr Reply Two—Red Herring, Meet Straw Man
Again, Mr Carr employs the same scattershot approach in this reply that characterized his first. His hope is that one of his many claims (which, conveniently, are left to stand as mere propositions for which he does not offer any substantive arguments) will score against Plantinga's argument. Mr Carr even presumes to describe Christian beliefs; he claims that “It is Christian dogma that God can, and has , created beings with free will that he knew in advance would never choose evil.” Curiously, this claim is not at all familiar to me, despite my many, many years of Christian faith; perhaps I should have been reading the Gospel According to Steven Carr! In any event, Mr Carr does make one near argument in this reply, one which revolves around the ability of God to create near-identical twins.

“If it is part of the essence of me,” Carr says, “that I choose evil when placed in some situations that occur in this world, then logically God can create a near-identical twin of me.” Now, in the first place it is not at all clear that the inclusion of free will in a human’s essential nature is sufficient for knowing that God has the ability to create a near-identical twin of some person. Perhaps it is the case that freedom of will is part of the essential nature of human beings but that there is no God! It certainly seems possible for that to be the case. And if it were, the inclusion of freedom in human nature wouldn’t say anything at all about God! So right from the start, Carr’s argument stands on shaky ground, being based on so questionable a conditional as he has given us.

But let us grant that God has this ability for the sake of further inquiry. Carr says that this twin behaves exactly like him except on the “one or two” occasions in which Carr does wrong. On those occasions, twin-Carr chooses good. But Carr goes further, asserting that on the occasions where he chooses good, twin-Carr chooses evil.

Now suppose that twin-Carr exists in possible world W and suppose that the actual world and W are identical in every respect except for the fact that Carr and twin-Carr’s moral behavior are mirror opposites. Whenever Carr chooses evil, twin-Carr chooses good and vice versa. I am willing to grant all this because this has absolutely no bearing on Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. Plantinga’s basic assertion is that it is possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no more evil. And it is not clear how Carr and twin-Carr will disprove such an assertion. Carr has as much as admitted that there are “one or two occasions” in which he chooses evil. So if God actualizes the world in which Carr exists (that is, the actual world) there will be evil in the world (at the very least the amount that results from Carr’s evil choices, however modest). So if God actualizes that world, there will be evil in the world, and it will not have been shown that God could create a world with moral good but no moral evil. But suppose that God had actualized W, the world containing twin-Carr. If he had done that, there would still have been moral evil in the world. Remember, twin-Carr’s moral behavior is a mirror opposite from Carr’s—which means that there are only “one or two” occasions in which twin-Carr chooses moral good. Which obviously means that every other of twin-Carr’s decisions are for moral evil. And that means that twin-Carr will bring about moral evil. And that means that if God actualizes W, it will be a world that contains moral evil. And so Mr Carr has still not shown that it is possible for God to actualize a world with moral good but no moral evil.

Mr Carr thinks that to get around these problems, all God has to do is not actualize the particular circumstances in which he chooses evil. But he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of world-actualization (as Plantinga characterizes it). Plantinga thinks that God actualizes the initial conditions of the world, and that human beings complete that world by their own free choices (and if he had read my essay thoroughly, he would not be confused on this point). It is not that God actualizes particular circumstances—he actualizes particular worlds. Now, given this objection, Carr’s counter-argument would be that God should actualize the world in which he chooses to do no moral wrong. But if he did, that would betray a fundamental misunderstanding of my essay, because that is just the objection that I argue against in my essay. If Plantinga is right that transworld depravity is possible, then it might turn out that God can’t create a world with moral good but no moral evil.

As it happens, disposing of transworld depravity would have gone quite a good distance toward defeating Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. But again, Mr Carr has declined to actually engage with Plantinga’s argument. This time Carr has erected a straw man—Carr spends his time establishing the fact that God can create a moral-twin Carr; but Plantinga never discussed the making of moral twins! So establishing the fact that God could make a twin-Carr does absolutely nothing to defeat Plantinga’s argument. The grandiose claim “Plantinga’s argument is shot to pieces” is clearly not warranted. Plantinga wants to establish that it is possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil. Mr Carr has successfully shown that God could have created a moral-twin Carr, but this in no way shows that it is not possible that God could not have created a world with moral good but no moral evil. So once again, Mr Carr has failed to produce an argument that will defeat Plantinga’s Free Will Defense.

Steven Carr Reply Three—Incoherent Indeed
In his third reply Mr Carr abandons his scattershot strategy (thankfully) but does not come any closer to defeating Plantinga.

Carr quotes two sentences from my essay, from my concluding reply to Geirsson and Losonsky. The quoted section deals with the issue of transworld depravity—which is what prevents God from creating a world without any moral good. If Mr Carr had thoroughly read my essay he would have understood the role and significance of transworld depravity. Instead, the only counter-argument he can offer is this: “This is all incoherent.” I submit that if Carr thinks that my summary of Plantinga’s argument is “incoherent” it is not due to error on my part. Transworld depravity is a simple matter of conditionals: if such and such happens, this and that will be the result. Not at all incoherent, unless one is so committed to one’s position that one cannot even comprehend the arguments of one’s opponents. In any event, the professor who graded the essay (who, incidentally, is not a fan of Plantinga) found it coherent enough to give me an “A.” That being the case, I’m rather inclined to accept his judgment of the matter over Mr Carr’s. Of course, this reply leaves me open to the fallacy of argument to authority, and that would be right. So I will say instead that there is a difference between an argument’s being logically inconsistent and an argument’s being difficult to understand. And Mr Carr’s failure to properly understand Plantinga’s argument from Transworld Depravity is hardly a winning critique of Plantinga’s argument. I suggest that had Mr Carr spent more time studying Plantinga, he might have actually offered an argument against Transworld Depravity, instead of making the bald assertion that it is inconsistent.

Carr claims, “If the world is *defined* as being the world in which Curley refuses the bribe, then Crley will refuse the bribe.” But nothing in Plantinga’s argument suggests that world-definition is what is at stake here. Plantinga never makes the claim that some possible world is defined as the world in which Curley accepts or refuses the bribe. He merely says that in some worlds Curley freely chooses to accept the bribe, and in some to refuse it. That choice is a feature of those possible worlds but Plantinga never claimed that that was what defined those worlds. Again, this is a straw man (though a poorly developed one). But no matter: transworld depravity can settle this issue. Suppose that in possible world W' Curley is offered a bribe and chooses to refuse it. In that world, Curley suffers from transworld depravity—that is, in W' Curley does no wrong (including refusing the bribe). But because he suffers from transworld depravity, if W' were the actual world, Curley would go wrong with respect to the bribe. Thus it would turn out that God hadn't actualized W' at all--because Curley's choosing to reject the bribe is a feature of W', and if Curley accepts it, the world that has been actualized can't be W'.

Transworld Depravity Triumphant
And therein lies the power of transworld depravity. If a person suffers from transworld depravity, there is no way for God to actualize a world with no moral evil because any attempt to actualize such a world would activate transworld depravity—and then moral evil would have been brought into the world and it would turn out not to be a world with no moral evil. And most importantly, transworld depravity doesn’t have to be true—it only has to be possible. If transworld depravity is even possible, then Plantinga has established that it is possible that God could not create a world in which there is moral good but no moral evil.

Although I applaud Mr Carr for engaging in discussion around this issue, I must conclude that his attempt to defeat Plantinga’s Free Will Defense is utterly unsuccessful.