The basic idea in brief
Many philosophers and theologians argue that genuine libertarian freedom only makes coherent sense if God exists. Without God, our strong sense of being able to make real, undetermined choices becomes mysterious or even illusory.
A rough version of the argument (drawn from theistic philosophers who defend libertarian free will):
We experience libertarian free will — We deliberate, feel we could have chosen differently (e.g., "I could have helped that person but chose not to"), and hold people morally responsible in ways that assume real alternate possibilities existed. This isn't just compatibilist "freedom" (acting according to your desires even if those desires are determined).
Libertarian free will is very difficult (or impossible) to explain in a purely physical/naturalistic universe — If the universe is just particles following deterministic (or indeterministic quantum) laws, where do agent-caused, non-determined choices come from? Physical causation seems to leave no room for an immaterial "self" that initiates actions without being fully caused by prior events. Randomness (e.g., quantum indeterminacy) doesn't help — randomness isn't control or responsibility.
Theism provides a coherent metaphysical ground for such freedom — God, as a non-physical, transcendent mind who creates souls/agents with causal powers that aren't reducible to physical laws, can create beings capable of libertarian freedom. The soul/mind isn't just a product of brain processes; it's a substance with its own causal efficacy, ultimately grounded in God's nature and creative act.
Therefore, the reality of libertarian free will (which we have strong introspective/practical reasons to believe in) is best explained by — or even evidence for — the existence of God. In a godless world, we'd have good reason to doubt we really have this kind of freedom (leading toward hard determinism, illusionism about free will, or compatibilism that many find unsatisfying for moral responsibility).
Put differently: The "Argument for God from Tangential Freedom" is primarily associated with the philosophical and theological framework of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist. While he more frequently used the term "Tangential Energy," the concept of freedom in his work is inextricably linked to how this energy interacts with the physical world to point toward a divine source.
Below are the primary ways this argument is structured, both in Teilhard’s specific system and in broader philosophical applications.
1. The Teilhardian Framework: Tangential vs. Radial Energy
Teilhard de Chardin argued in his seminal work, The Phenomenon of Man, that all matter possesses two types of energy. This distinction forms the basis of an argument for God (whom he called the Omega Point):
Tangential Energy: This is the physical, measurable energy studied by science (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.). It links elements of the same order and follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), meaning it tends toward decay and disorder.
Radial Energy (Freedom): This is the spiritual or "psychic" energy of consciousness. Unlike tangential energy, radial energy is "creative" and "free"; it drives evolution toward greater complexity, unity, and self-awareness.
The Argument:
If the universe were composed only of "tangential" forces, it would eventually succumb to heat death and total disorder. However, we observe a "radial" movement toward higher freedom and consciousness. Because this "freedom" defies the downward pull of physical entropy, Teilhard argued it must be drawn by a "Supreme Pole" of attraction—a personal, divine God (the Omega Point) who exists outside the causal chain to pull the universe toward ultimate unity.
2. The Geometrical Metaphor: Freedom as a "Tangent"
In broader philosophical circles, the "tangential" argument is sometimes used as a metaphor for Libertarian Free Will. This argument is structured as follows:
The Circle of Causality: Modern physicalism views the universe as a "closed circle" of cause and effect (Determinism). Every event is the result of a prior physical state.
The Tangent Point: Human freedom, if it truly exists, allows a person to initiate an action that is not strictly determined by prior physical states.[1][2] This is visualized as a tangent line—it "touches" the circle of physical causality at the point of decision but originates from a different plane (the non-physical or spiritual).
Conclusion: If humans possess this "tangential" freedom, there must be a non-physical reality (the soul) and a non-physical Originator (God) who provides the grounding for such a capacity to exist within a material world.
3. Connection to the "Argument from Reason"
This argument is also related to the Argument from Reason (popularized by C.S. Lewis). Lewis argued that if our thoughts were merely the "tangential" by-products of irrational physical causes (atoms colliding in the brain), we would have no reason to believe those thoughts are true.
The fact that we can use reason to step outside our physical impulses suggests that our minds are "tangential" to nature—meaning they are influenced by a supernatural Logic or Logos (God) rather than being entirely subsumed by the "circle" of biological instinct.
Summary of the Argument
Whether through Teilhard's "radial energy" or the geometrical metaphor of the "tangent," the core of the argument is:
Observation: We experience a form of freedom/consciousness that is not fully explained by physical laws.
Conflict: Physical laws are deterministic and entropic; freedom is spontaneous and creative.
Deduction: Therefore, this freedom must be an "entry point" of a higher, divine reality into the material world.
Variations and related arguments
Some tie it more closely to love and relationships — Real love (toward God or other people) requires libertarian freedom to be meaningful. A deterministic or puppet-like "love" isn't genuine. God creates a world with free creatures to enable real love/relationship, which is a great good. The existence of beings capable of such love points back to a purposeful intelligent design by a personal God.
Others use it defensively in the problem of evil: Libertarian free will is so valuable (for moral growth, love, etc.) that God has reason to allow it even if it leads to evil — indirectly supporting the plausibility of God.
