“Irresistible force used by God on his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!” (Norman Geisler, “God knows all Things,” Predestination and Free Will, (ed.) David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986), 69 ).
I have often heard these kinds of claims presented as an argument for freely willed eternal damnation. Let’s call this the “Free will rape” argument. We can summarize it as follows:
(1) It is always wrong to rape.
(2) Suppressing a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p is a form of rape.
(3) Therefore it is always wrong to to suppress a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p.
If this kind of argument can be sustained then it will serve as a rebutting defeater to the argument I presented in “Free will, hell, and reasonable appeals to emotion“. But is it a good argument?
It is certainly an appeal to emotion. And as you’ll remember last time I argued that this is not necessarily a bad thing. But neither is it necessarily a good thing. In the present case we must carefully scrutinize (2). Is suppressing free will actually a case of rape?
Let’s consider a couple different (but overlapping) interpretations of the claim and assess each one.
Interpretation 1
On the first interpretation Geisler is presenting an argument by analogy which goes like this:
(1′) It is always wrong to rape.
(2′) Suppressing a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p is relevantly analogous to rape.
(3) Therefore it is always wrong to to suppress a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p.
So now let’s focus on (2′). Are sexual rape and the suppression of free will relevantly analogous? To discern that we must reflect on what makes sexual rape so disturbing.
Lack of consent. The first obvious essential in sexual rape is lack of consent. Note that the victim need not even be aware that the rape has occurred. Thus, rape can involve physical force or coercion but it need not. The problem with locating an analogy here is that while the suppression of free will involves a lack of consent, so do all sorts of other things which are not rape. When Mr. Brown tells Jimmy to cut the grass “or else” he is forcing Jimmy to engage in behavior against his consent, but it certainly isn’t rape.
Sexual nature. Recent legal definitions of rape have dropped more restrictive references to penetration of some kind (either of another body or foreign object) but they retain the focus on rape as being an act of a sexual nature without the consent of the victim. Needless to say this is sharply disanalogous with the suppression of one’s free will.
Motivating factors. There is no agreement on the factors behind rape. In all likelihood there are a combination of factors including the desire to exercise power, inflict harm, and achieve sexual gratification. But the motivation for suppressing free will obviously has no necessary link with any of these. To be sure it could, but in the case of God desiring to rescue people from a fate of eternal damnation, it most surely does not.
So it seems that this first interpretation is hopeless. The suppression of free will is like sexual rape in one main characteristic (lack of consent) but that is insufficient to call the act “rape” and thus conclude that it is essentially wrong.
Interpretation 2
According to the second interpretation the main point is not that suppressing free will is like sexual rape but rather that suppressing the free will and sexual rape are both token examples of a general type called “rape”.
(1) It is always wrong to rape.
(2-1) Engaging in sexual activity with a person without their consent is a form of rape.
(2-2) Suppressing a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p is a form of rape.
(3) Therefore it is always wrong to to suppress a person’s free will such that they begin to desire p rather than not-p. (from (1) and (2-2))
But here’s the immediate problem. What is the type essence that is getting instantiated in these token examples? If we go to the etymology of the word “rape” we find that it originally meant “to take by force, seize or abduct”. That means we would unpack (1) as follows:
(1”) It is always wrong to take by force, seize or abduct something.
But obviously that isn’t true. It may be wrong to take another person’s body by force for the purposes of engaging in a sexual act, but if a person is pointing a gun at you it clearly isn’t wrong to take that by force. So on this expansive definition, rape as a type act isn’t always wrong. Sexual rape is always wrong but other instances of “raping” (like forcibly removing the gun from another person’s hand) isn’t. So if we’re going to go with this unconventional definition then (1”) is false and thus the suppression of free will is no longer necessarily wrong.
Here is a second possible interpretation of the general type: rape is wanton despoilation.
(1”’) It is always wrong to engage in an act of wanton despoilation.
So environmentalists describe the “rape of the earth” through the clear cutting of old growth forests. And a man “rapes a woman” by coercing her to engage in a sexal act. Without getting into a debate over the merits of clear cutting forests, I’ll just note that the suppression of one’s free will is not necessarily an act of “wanton despoilation” and thus this definition also fails.
I could go on with more obscure suggestions but I don’t see much hope for Geisler’s provocative assertion. Instead, I think I’ll wrap this up with a more relevant analogy:
Allie is a crack addict who has seen her life implode because of her desire for another hit of crack. Her family has tried everything to save her from her addictions but to no avail. Finally, one night when she is asleep her dad — a brilliant medical doctor — slips into her room and inserts a tiny, indetectable patch on the back of her neck which immediately overrides any desire for crack a split second before it arises. The next morning Allie wakes up and has no desire for crack any longer. She goes on to rebuild her life with her loving family, exercising her free will in all sorts of ways while never realizing that any desire for crack has been overridden.
Did Allie’s dad rape her in the predawn? Surely it would be hard to conceive a more stupid and offensive suggestion than that. But I can think of one suggestion that is more stupid and offensive. In case you’re interested, it is quoted at the opening of this article.
