>From: gordon brown <gbrown@euclid.Colorado.EDU>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
>> In regard to events in our future, unpredictable
>> options abound. Until these events in our future actually happen, they are
>> not knowable, not even, I believe, by God (unless God exercises all such
>> options by divine pre-determination).
>
> Such a view places the Creator in subjection to part of His creation
> (time).
Hmmm.... I'm not sure of all of the connections here. Let me try to sort
some of the issues out.
Strategy A:
1. Suppose we say that God knows all that is knowable about the creation.
2. Suppose we also say that there is authentic contingency in the flow of
events in the creation. That is, there is no way whatsoever (given all that
is in principle knowable to creatures about the present state and about the
way things work) for creatures to predict all events in the creation's
future. The only way for creatures to know the future is for them to
experience it happening (which includes the experience of their making
meaningful choices). Stated more strongly, the future is made "on the fly"
as particular contingencies are actualized.
3. Does God know the creation's future, the future that from the vantage
point of its creatures has not yet been actualized? I have said, No. Why?
Because, it seems to me, that if God knows the future, then that future --
in all detail -- is a certainty. And if it is a certainty, then authentic
contingency is no longer conceivable. The actualizations that took place
were not of authentic contingencies, but only of apparent contingencies.
Divine foreknowledge acts something like a "hidden variable" that determines
the outcome of events that have only a superficial appearance of
contingency.
4. Hence it looks like authentic contingency and divine foreknowledge are
mutually exclusive.
Strategy B:
1. From the human point of view, a complete knowledge of the future is
undesirable. Suppose, for example, you had foreknowledge of an extremely
painful experience in your life, or the life of a loved one. Would that be a
pleasant thing to know?
2. From the human point of view, the lack of foreknowledge is essential to
the (often very pleasant) experience of surprise. Who of us would want to
life a life devoid of pleasant surprises?
3. If we would wish to preserve the possibility of surprise in our own life,
why would we wish to deny that experience to God?
Strategy C:
1. Suppose that God knows everything that is knowable about the creation.
2. Suppose that not everything about the creation's future is knowable.
3. How does that place God "in subjection to part of His creation"?
4. If "in subjection" means "having opportunity to respond spontaneously and
creatively to something that could not be foreknown," is that necessarily
problematic?
Strategy D:
1. From the human point of view, a complete knowledge of the future is
impossible because our future actions are influenced by our past experience.
Given foreknowledge, how could our future be unaffected by that
foreknowledge? Is there any future course of events for us that is stable in
the presence of complete foreknowledge?
2. Try that line of thought from God's point of view. Does it make sense to
envision God's interaction with any creature as being unaffected by God's
foreknowledge -- both of the creation's future and of God's "future"
interactions with it? Is every aspect of God's own action then part of God's
foreknowledge?
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 10:20:46 EST