I’ve covered this ground here before, but I’m not sure I got anything like a satisfactory answer. Then again, better thinkers than us have been covering this ground for centuries, I guess. Anyway, I was responding to a post suggesting what a great deal Christianity was because “your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it.”
I responded:
See, the way I read it, you start with the premise that the universe was created by God, an omniscient/omnipotent being. With those assumptions, any sins are his fault. He knows everything and has the power to change everything. We cannot make a choice that he did not know about in advance. Therefore, it wasn’t a choice. By definition, He can’t be omniscient if he doesn’t know how we will choose. And, if he is omnipotent, he could have caused it to be otherwise, he simply chose not to. Even more, he has created a hell to torment us for all eternity about these “choices”? That’s insane.
Having his boy killed to “save” us from these sins, keeping in mind he is saving us from the hell he created, doesn’t really make me think any better of him.
If he had limited knowledge and/or limited power, the whole thing might make some logical, ethical sense; but not otherwise.
Choice requires the presence of uncertainty. Omniscience is the absence of uncertainty. The two cannot co-exist.
I think your logic is irrefutable IF one believes in a “personal” God–i.e., an aware ‘entity’ that created the world. There are other versions of diety that are, in my view, more defensible; my own favorite is that ‘God’ is the name we give to the presence of the ethical impulse. That is, humans have a strong sense of right and wrong (although the content of those categories is largely culturally determined). If we want to call that sense ‘God’ and think honestly and carefully and with humility about what constitutes fidelity to it–what constitutes a good, moral life–I think such an effort is admirable. Religion at its finest. Unfortunately, that is not religion as most people practice it.
I’ve had trouble with this over the years, but have found intellectual comfort in three things: 1.) thinking of examples where I have “omniscience” and yet, people (seemingly) retain free will in making choices; 2.) the idea of a God outside of time looking in on our decisions within time; and 3.) the hand-waving but still true observation that a God who is, by definition, bigger than us will be, at some level, inscrutable.
A few thoughts on your comments: 1.) Omnipotence does not necessarily imply exercising that power in any given circumstance. 2.) Omnipotence and omniscience are, ironically, limited– by definition. E.g,. God cannot create a square circle. 3.) If people have free will, then they choose to follow God or not. And if they decide not to want to be with God, He gives them the dignity of that choice in what the Bible labels Hades/Hell. In this sense, we create Hell far more than He does. 4.) An eternal punishment– a decision that last for eternity– is a necessary implication of the Bible; eternal torment is not.
The Garden of Eden was man’s chance to be omniscient,but we decided to figure things out for oursleves,so now we need ‘God’s grace’..Here comes the much maligned catholic teaching of ‘original sin’
which was a repudiation of our chance of omniscience through obedience.’Original sin’ is like you can’t go back to being a virgin no matter how hard you try or want to.
This is my explanation for myself,and probably smacks of catholicism,but isn’t that typical of all explantions where we force our minds to comprehend beyond our capacity? We are forced to rely on the juggling quotient of our brains how and on what we were taught and our experiences.
I now understand better what what Jean-Paul Sartre meant when he wrote that each of is is ‘doomed to free choice’, It’s that we all like to verify in advance that our choice will be pre-approved by some omniscient force…free choice keeps us out on a limb when we want to join the inner circle. No such luck! Our knowledge is limited both by science and by parochialism.But in these later years I think enhanced by both is more likely, but always depending on the disposition of the individual.
Again, if we can, though, I’d like someone to explain – if it’s possible – how the existence of choice can be reconciled with the existence of omniscience.
How can there be omniscience if any uncertainty exists?
Alternately, how can anything but the illusion of choice exist in the presence of total certainty?
Can you think of an example– e.g., with a child– where you have omniscience and yet, the child (seemingly) retains free will in making a choice?
Is this a philosophical concern (how to resolve the two) or theological (concern about God’s attributes)? If the latter, the Bible clearly teaches both, including free will. If there is free will, then people choose to have relationship with God on His terms– or they do not. If they don’t want it in “this” life, why would they want it for eternity?
I guess it’s a theological debate. The key, I suppose, is that my “omniscience” is only apparent and not actual. I have a very good guess what a child will choose, but I don’t *know* it.
I don’t think God could design a universe where he knew a thing and at the same time left it uncertain any more than he could design one where the shortest distance between two points was anything other than a straight line or 1+1 was anything other than 2.
I contend that if God knows, rather than strongly suspects, what you will “choose” then you are not, in fact, free to choose otherwise.
Perhaps I have too much confidence in my “(certain) knowledge” of certain occasions!
Is there a particular Biblical passage you have in mind or just a generic claim that He is omniscient. If the latter, I still think my point #2 “takes care” of that, but if not, why not just relax your belief in His omniscience a bit?
Just a general claim. If God doesn’t know everything, then free choice is still possible.
Ive figured out that free choice is always possible because certainty is a personal judgment,and not choosing is a valid choice..
I don’t have a specific Biblical reference, but I hear Christians saying all the time that God “sees all, hears all, and knows all.” No, not all Christians believe in the complete omniscience of God, but I think a large swath of lay Christians, particularly the Evangelical and less educated kind, believe this.
Of course, there are some Christians who believe there really isn’t free will too. Some of them seem to not realize a difference and waft back and forth between free will and God-scripted life. I’m always fascinated by the people who talk about “God’s plan” and even more by the people who insist on saying “God willing” when they make future plans with someone. “I’ll see you tomorrow, God willing.” For some, God is responsible for everything that has happened to them.
If God’s powers are limited, then is he really the supreme being or just some middle-manager who was put in charge of this part of the galaxy? Or is God a franchise and our “God’s” limits are defined by the franchise agreement?
Finally, I’d say you cannot “relax” omniscience. You’re either omniscient or you aren’t. His omnipotence could certainly help him see everything that happens, but his omniscience would require him to know everything before it happens, which negates free will.
I do allow for the possibility that he’s simply omnipotent and when it is said that he “knows all” that really means he sees all and knows how you’ve used your free will.
Regardless, I don’t think a lot of Christians do (or are perhaps incapable to) make those kinds of distinctions. In other words, how many regular folks out there “get” the idea that true omniscience would preclude free will?
Doug,
Thank you for your very erudite comments. Religionists try to have it both ways and somehow never see, or admit, the obvious problems with their position. After centuries of telling us that the earth is the center of everything they are now positioning themselves to address alien lifeforms, if, and when, they are found elsewhere in the limited piece of the universe within which we exist.
Jerame, thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
All sorts of people believe all sorts of unexamined things– from the efficacy of the minimum wage to the supposed power of Evolution as an explanation for the development of life. In a complex world, with busy people, such outcomes are not at all surprising.
We should strive to learn more– while recognizing our limits. Thoughtful people have found ways to resolve this (apparent) antinomy. Beyond that, as noted, there are a number of other ways around the conundrum. Earnest people will wrestle with reason and faith– and reach their (tentative) conclusions.
The above series of posts have been thought provoking.
The big issue for me in today’s political climate is how ‘conservative politics’ has wrapped its arms around,and defined for us all,what ‘Christianity’ is. I lived in Mexico City a couple summers, years ago and went to school to learn Spanish in 6 weeks of total immersion. The Marist brothers,with whom I lived, would go out into the streets in street garb,making sure they weren’t recognized as church-affiliated.When they bargained at markets they’d say ,’no’,by saying they’d have to go home and check with ‘the wife’.No priest would walk the streets in clerics by law and for self-protection..I point this out as being ‘separation of church and state’ at its worst.But reviewing Mexican history, it’s all sequential and ‘logical’.
Religion becomes an albatross around our necks when we see our special insights as universal ones for all to live by,and the political system gives power without light-of-day due process.In our present political climate it’s the Protestant Evangelical Movement that has become the historic RCC,we need to protect secular government from.Many don’t see the threat because it’s indigenous culture.
My line is always ‘Find it in the Bill of Rights’and legislate it constitutionally. Secular government protects civil rights and churches and religion. I just wish we’d make more of a national effort to define what our secular government means to us all,and how important it is to honor our system of law which has evolved over time to serve us well.Religious people should be the first in line to support secular government,and don’t let others define it for us as ‘godless’. That’s spin.
I don’t think the USA will ever follow the anti-clerical path of Mexico,but its a good anecdotal example of how religion can fall out of favor and be seen as a national problem. Our constitutional traditions of precedents of law have long protected us from extremism.One man’s revelation is another man’s delusion,but ‘delusion’ should remain an assumed constitutional civil right.
In my view,Islam has a long way to go to examine its apparent blindless to internal extremism or delusion.It will be a danger for itself and for everyone else for the forseeable future,and we will all suffer a more pronounced loss of civil liberities because of religious extremism.Thats how I see it anyway.And our reaction to extremism contributes to this loss,so we need to be constitutional in our reaction.We should all agree on that. Lets not go the path of Mexico.
I just got an E-mail from God. She is Mightely affornted at Eric’s claim that She isn’t capable of creating a square circle. “He (referring to the Ruler of an alternate universe) might be non-omnicient in that regard, but never underestimate the power of a Woman”.
I have been a Christian all my life. Today, after reading these posts several times in the attempt to try to understand what the hell you’re all talking about, I will thank Almighty God that I never had the desire to further my education.
I do, however, wish I could be a little better at Scrabble.
“I will thank Almighty God that I never had the desire to further my education.”
And therein lies part of the problem I have with organized religion. A self-professed satisfaction with ignorance, a disdain for education and the erroneous belief that the Bible, written by men and edited repeatedly, has all the answers necessary for living in today’s world.
Jesus loves me this I know, for my Mother told me so.
He loves this athiest, homosexual too. ;)
And so does She, Chad.
Seriously, I think you’ve made a good point concerning serious philosophic/theological dialogue. There is a basic contradiction between claims that God made Man in His/(Her) image and likeness, including the marvels of the human mind capable of deep intellectual thought, and then essentially rejecting the use of those marvslous faculties (whether from evolution or special creation) to try and understand some pretty fundamental questions about the meaning of human existance and the universe generally.
I think a lot of this is really a discussion of what the institution of Christianity teaches versus reality. Reality, we will not know in this life, hence the idea of faith. What roils me (as someone raised Catholic) is that the Church consistently encourages we, “put our faith in God,” when what they actually are saying is, “put your faith in the institution of the Church.”
The problem, from my PoV, is that the Church seems to have a long history of acting in a manner most politically expedient. The Middle Ages are a perfect illustration of how the Church actively used the uneducated population (including the ruling class) to further a political agenda, not an ecclesiastic one.
This still is happening today – many Catholic writings address the idea that we have lost our, “wonderment of God’s creation.” I believe this is code for, “you aren’t ignorant enough…”
In this regard, I hypothesize that the actual existence of God is much different than portrayed by organized religion, i.e. the ideas of omnipotence and omniscience are created by man and irrelevant to the actual state in which God exists. I believe that they were created for two reasons:
1. To keep the members of the Church in line
2. To provide a salve for the struggles of human existence
Whether we have free will or not is largely a matter of degrees. Can you not blink when something flies toward your eye? Can you choose to not feel pain? I also believe that the decisions we make are based upon the sum total of our experiences and we would make the same decision over and over, i.e. our brains do not play dice.
So in that regard, free will is not part of the human condition.
An interesting exercise relating to this discussion:
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi
You could try to figure it all out, or you could chalk the contradictions up to religion being poorly-designed. It all made a lot more sense when we didn’t know things about the world. Oh, a big guy did it in a week? Now that’s a powerful being. I think that’s who I’ll worship. Etc.
I used to try to get my mind around all of the contradictions. It just required so much backfilling to prop it up, and I was probably not enthusiastic enough for the task. Mostly I’ve cleared that space in the brain that used to grapple with these questions, and don’t miss the clutter now that it’s gone.
Watch the end of the 2nd Matrix movie. It is along the same lines.
Knowing what decision you will make does not mean you were not free to make the other choice.
For example, we now know what choice of words you made in your comments above. Since we know, did that mean you were unable to make any other choice of words?
If I could look into the future, would that mean that no one had free will anymore? I don’t think so.
The problem of evil for God’s existence and attributes is at least several hundred years old in philosophy and is no closer to being solved than most other philosophical conundrums. Doug has raised an interesting question here but there is perhaps one that is slightly more interesting: whether or not God had a choice to create this world or some other one if this one must be the best possible world (sins and choice and all). You see, someone can respond to Doug by claiming that the overall combination of sinful choices in this world is the best combination possible (I don’t necessarily agree, just stating the premise) and therefore God is off the hook for being omniscient and allowing sin and innocent suffering. The next question in response is whether or not God could have created another world with more or less sin and/or evil to begin with! If God is good in ALL ways possible, then we assume that God would create the best possible world (otherwise s/he is not the best possible deity). In other words, if God knows what the best possible world is, then it seems that a perfectly good God would have to create that world and not another. Thus, the omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent God might have a built in feature of lacking freedom to act in certain ways. Perhaps this is not important in the least to your everyday church-goer. But given the initial question here, the thought of God’s freedom being incompatible with other perfections seems apropo.
FYI, one of the most well known thinkers on the problem of evil is an Indiana import who taught philosophy at Purdue, William Rowe (no relation). For more philosophical discussion of the problem of evil, knock yourself out here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
The whole point is knowing – and I mean *knowing,* not just an educated guess or strong suspicion – in advance. If God *knew* it in advance, then it could not turn out otherwise. For mortals, only charlatans claim to see the future. But the Almighty, I have been assured by certain well-meaning believers, knows all that is, was, and will be. That utter lack of uncertainty means that the choices you think you have are mere illusions of choice. There was never any uncertainty, except in your tiny mortal brain, about how you were going to choose.
Just musing here, but I suppose maybe we could gin something up with Schrodinger’s Cat and/or the Many Worlds Interpretation. But, if those preserved free-will and omniscience, they would probably call into serious question the moral value of any choice since all choices would exist simultaneously.
Doug, I think you may be working with a different notion of free will here than I am. What does it mean to have free will on your view? Is it non-determined choice? Is it un-influenced choice? (Is it something else?) These two are not the same I think. All choices are causally determined in some sense or another whether it be by “natural” forces or by the will (perhaps these two are the same in which case are discussion is probably over). But, I typically think of free will more in the second sense and not just in the first. I think that makes it much easier to accept theoretically omniscience and free will as compatible. I could say more but I will let you respond if you care to. What do you think?
It means that more than one outcome is possible in advance of the choice. Let’s say you are facing what looks to be a choice of “A” or “B.” If God knew ahead of time – and I mean really knew, not just suspected – that you were going to choose “B,” then “A” was never really a potential option for you. The apparent possibility of choosing “A” was nothing more than a mirage.
Are you saying it’s impossible for anyone to know with certainty what another person will choose– or just the narrower claim that you have never experienced such certainty?
Since we’re playing with hypotheticals: If it is possible, would the other person retain choice and/or free will?
How we define ‘free and ‘choice’ determines what ‘free choice’ is. But if the issue is whether God knew in advance what everyone would choose,then it’s like determining on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If we know the answer everyone still can make choices,and whether God knew in advance is purely a religious issue.Do we feel ‘used’? If so,then we become wary of religion.
When Sophie gave up her daughter to certain death to save her son,was that ‘free choice’ and did God pre-approve? That’s a discussion question. Some existentialists maintain that no choice is a free choice,and even when a person is under torture he ‘chooses’ at what point he crys out,if he chooses to.
Is this is an argument to prove that religious thinkers are trapped into at the logic wall,I would say they are,if thats the issue.The only way a believer in God can respond to the question are ‘free will and omniscience compatable? ‘ is say it’s a ‘matter of faith’
I wish we’d be consistent at all intellectual levels and not try to equate creationism/ID with scientic method, to prove religion is also science,or ‘just as good as ‘Science’. There comes a point when we realize that science and faith are two different mindsets. Science may someday prove God but in the meantime lets not fill in the science gaps with religious concepts,otherwise we will never learn anything. Let the gaps become scientific projects.
There will also be sceptics. How many people think we never landed on the moon? 15%?
Good stuff, Lou!
A few thoughts…
Whether we recognize it or not, all of us have “faith” on such complex issues. These things are beyond our ken– however they turn out. To your point, there are a variety of religious and secular approaches to the questions of determinism and free will. It may be fun for others to take pokes at those who have a relatively blind faith on such things. But clearly, the most interesting kind of dolt in these debates is the one who thinks he has the answer in a nice, tight, “logical” box.
Young earth creationism is a very distant cousin of ID; old earth creationism is a first or second cousin; ID is not inherently religious (in the common sense of the term); at least on paper, ID is a scientific pursuit (although it may prove to be fruitless); so-called micro-evolution is Scientific; so-called macro-Evolution is a scientifically-flavored narrative; and the Bible is true insofar as it speaks to science (a rare event). For those interested in reading about ID and/or wanting to avoid saying popular but erroneous things about ID, I would recommend Dembski’s The Design Revolution.
No need for all this lofty theology stuff. Pat Robertson today says his omnicient God punished Haiti because it has long had a “pact with the Devil”. Likely predestined, too.
And, P.S., please send money to God, c/o Pat Robertson.
Doug, my question at 7:26 was for you…
And as a follow-up, weren’t you certain that Pat would say something stupid after this event? ;-)
I guess I’m saying that there has to be uncertainty for choice to exist. If the outcome is known in advance, then the choice can’t be real because there is no possibility for the chooser to select the outcome not known to a certainty by the omniscient being.
“And, P.S., please send money to God, c/o Pat Robertson”
Sorry, Doug, but in that conversation I referred to a a comment way above, God told me that She only took cash, no checks or credit cards. But Pat isn’t pickey.
Are there cases where one person could have that certainty?
If so, you’re saying that the other person would have no choice then– and presumably would not be culpable for glory or blame?
So, you’re saying time travel to the past is impossible, or if it exists, it eliminates free will?
Not calling you crazy for thinking that, but just checking to see if I understand.
My own view is that there is no such thing as only one official time for the universe.
The atomic bomb is bring dropped right now, in the time of 1945. There is no chance that it isn’t being dropped, from my perspective it has already happened. My knowledge of that didn’t take away the free will of the people that dropped the bomb. To someone in the future, this blog post has already been posted, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have free will to create my own words.
Did the Haitian Congress ratify this pact with the devil? If not, they should have an out.
I don’t intend to make light of a tragedy of this magnitude – it is a devastating event. Robertson, however, seems to jump straight to blame whenever anything like this happens. At the risk of bringing down the level of discourse, I can’t think of anything other than douche-bag to describe him and his ilk.
Jason, Doug is stuck in one-dimensional-time thinking. Sorry! ;-)
Jason, interesting point about time travel, but I think in general it would support the idea of there not being free will. In order for time travel (at least as I conceptualize it) to exist, a static time-continuum would need to exist, otherwise all the time travel would be changing the future constantly. In that regard, free will would seem not to exist, as the time-continuum would be static.
If the time continuum is not static, then even the idea of time travel could exist one second, and not the next. In this constantly changing paradigm it would be nearly impossible to exercise free will because the choices in front of us wouldn’t or mightn’t exist long enough to exercise free will. We wouldn’t be predestined, but omni-destined to the point where any choice was moot, since the choice itself would vanish. Another possibility is that any choice made could be infinitely revisited, like a cosmic save-game of life, at which point it isn’t an exercise of choice as much as learning all the outcomes and then choosing.
At which point I have typed myself into circles. *head hurts*
Not to get too far afield here, but I just watched Pat Robertson’s video clip: http://www.first-draft.com/2010/01/well-that-didnt-take-long.html
His claim is that the Haitians made a pact with the devil for their freedom from the French. He even used the words “true story” in the description.
So fighting an occupying nation isn’t allowed if the occupier is a Christian nation. Oh wait… Church of England? Ooops.
It was interesting just recently to read about plans to send a new satellite into space with a telescope that can see to the end of the universe and see our origins.So seeing far is the same as seeing back in time. So theoretically a person could figure out the right place in space to be positioned to see the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. If he wanted to see a rerun he’s just travel the appropriate number of light years farther out. Its just a matter of logistics.
Doug, it seems you are defining free will simply as unknowable and thus, yes, omniscience and free will are incompatible. I think time is probably an momentous factor/issue here and our general inability to think outside of it fuels a definition like yours. Perhaps one of the other posts stated this, but if I were able to see the exact future as it unfolding one hour before it occurred, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the actions that occurred within that time frame were all determined in the sense I think you imply with your view. Instead, that would simply mean that I had the ability outside of time as we experience it to “see” what others choose. Getting caught up in the “seeing BEFORE we choose it” perspective on this issue seems to be a hang up that is understandable given our time laden perspective. However, I don’t think it necessitates the incompatibility of knowledge (and ultimately omniscience) and choice. I’ll probably leave it at that. This has been an interesting discussion. Thanks! :)
It seems to me that free will has to include the ability to change your future; otherwise, what are you choosing?
That time is a linear, one direction kind of thing obviously isn’t a given. But thinking of time in other ways raises other questions. If God exists outside of time but can know it all at once — assuming there is only a single universe — means he can see which path you “chose.” If he knew to a certainty that it would be so, you had no real power to choose otherwise. If you did have power to choose otherwise, God couldn’t know to a certainty which you would choose.
I mentioned the many worlds interpretation above which, to my simple understanding, raises the possibility that the outcome of all choices exist in their own universe. Basically, every time there is a possibility of A or B, both things happen and become part of a new universe. There could be a God that exists outside of time and knows all about each of these universes. But, in this scenario, punishment for the choices doesn’t make a lot of sense. The “bad” choice was, of necessity, going to be made in one time line or another. My reasoning here, I understand, is a lot sloppier. It has to do with my feeble understanding of the many worlds interpretation and the slippery ground of morality and just punishment.
I happily ignore the many worlds interpretation because it makes my brain hurt, and it honestly seems like more of a cop-out than faith in God for a scientist.
I had not thought of it at that level before, but it seems to ring more true the more I think of it. Scientists can’t explain how quantum mechanics works, and we all agree that just saying “God did it” doesn’t work for science. However, saying that since I can’t figure out if the cat is dead or not, then there must be a universe that it is alive in and another universe that it is dead without any evidence of these universes is AT LEAST as lame as what scientists accuse religious people of. :)
Lou, I like your point about getting far enough away with a powerful lens and seeing the past. That sure would solve a lot of arguments! However, we’d have to break the speed of light to pull that off, and Einstein says no to that right now. However, this is the same guy that proved that space and time are not constants. We can speed up and slow down time, so I don’t think we can ignore the chance that we might be able to reverse it.
I thought of he Many Worlds theory when I was watching a recent well-done documentary of the French-Indian wars. Some key battles going the other way ,French-speaking Canda could have been soldified westward through the Louisiana purchase area. English-speaking America would have a western border somewhere near Pittsburg.
And what if Napolean wouldnt have needed to sell Louisana for his war efforts? I, a native Illinoisian, and all the Hoosiers here would all be posting in erudite French. Then I would have to have learned English instead of French,as well as everyone else here contributing.
Lou, you’re assuming there. “Erudite French”? Here? To Parisians we would likely sound like we came from somewhere south of Toulon. lol
“If he knew to a certainty that it would be so, you had no real power to choose otherwise.”
If X is true, then Y cannot be true.
X = certain knowledge of action
Y = choice in that action
This is defining free will as incompatible with omniscience – if an action is known for certain to happen, then there can be no choice in that action. In other words, a free choice is one that cannot be known. There’s no use in my arguing (hypothetically I might add) that they could be compatible if by definition you say they are not :)