Today, I’m going to start looking at chapter 5 of Dr. Edward Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God. I thought I’d begin with Feser’s take on Divine foreknowledge and free will. To cut a long story short: Feser is a predestinationist who professes at the same time to believe that humans possess genuine free will. In order to reconcile these beliefs, he proposes an analogy which at first seems plausible, but which ultimately collapses because it completely ignores our personal relationship with our Creator. To make matters worse, Feser holds that God knows everything that happens in this world, non-propositionally. He proposes another analogy to explain how this might be, but at most, it merely explains how God might know creatures; it fails to explain how He knows what they get up to. I conclude that not only is Feser’s account of God’s foreknowledge incoherent, but his account of how God knows any fact whatsoever about the world is also unintelligible.
This will be a much shorter post than my last one, so there’s no need to crack open a beer (at least, not yet). I’ll explain the picture of Mia Farrow shortly.
Divine foreknowledge and human freedom
Let’s begin with Feser’s predestinationism. To be sure, Feser never uses the word “predestination” in his book, but that is precisely what he believes: he hold that God decides everything that happens in this world. As Feser puts it, “he knows everything – including the present and the future – precisely by virtue of being its cause” (2017, p. 214) and he also compares God’s knowledge to “an author’s knowledge of the characters and events of the story he has come up with” (2017, p. 212). As Feser explains:
Now, the way an author knows these characters and events [in his story] is not by observing them. It is not a kind of perceptual knowledge. Rather, the author knows them by knowing himself, by virtue of knowing his own thoughts and intentions as an author. And that is precisely the way in which God knows the world. … [I]t is in a single, timeless act that God causes to exist everything that has been and will be. And it is in knowing himself as so acting that God knows everything that is, has been and will be. His knowledge of the world is a consequence of his self-knowledge. (2017, p. 212)
This analogy invites the obvious objection that if God knows everything that happens in the world by causing it to happen, then human beings cannot be said to have free will. Feser has a ready answer: just as the characters in an author’s story can be said to act freely, so too can the human characters in God’s story. In his own words:
Consider once again the analogy with the author of a story. Suppose it is a crime novel and that one of the characters carefully plots the murder of another, for financial gain. We would naturally say that he commits the murder of his own free will, and is therefore justly punished after being caught at the end of the novel. It would be silly to say: “Well, he didn’t really commit the murder of his own free will. For he committed it only because the author wrote the story that way.” The author’s writing the story the way he did is not inconsistent with the character’s having freely committed the murder.… It is perfectly coherent to say that the author wrote a story in which someone freely chooses to commit a murder.
Similarly, it is perfectly coherent to say that God causes a world to exist in which someone freely chooses to commit a murder, or to carry out some other act. God’s causal action is no more inconsistent with our having free will than the author’s action is inconsistent with his characters’ having free will… The author’s causal relation to the story is radically unlike the relations the characters in the story have to each other, and God’s causal relation to the world is radically unlike the relation we and other elements of the world have to each other. (2017, pp. 214-215)
Which brings us to Mia Farrow, who played the part of Jacqueline in the movie Death on the Nile, which was based on Agatha Christie's book of the same title. As most of my readers will be aware, in the book, Jacqueline de Bellefort and her fiancé, Simon Doyle, plot the death of wealthy heiress Linnet Ridgeway, coming up with a very clever scheme which they nearly get away with. Only at the end of the story does detective Hercule Poirot uncover the truth, at which point Jacqueline finally confesses before embracing Simon, and then shooting him in the head before killing herself.
I don’t imagine any of Agatha Christie’s readers felt terribly sorry for Jacqueline de Bellefort or her fiancé, Simon Doyle. But if someone were to use the characters in her novel, Death on the Nile, in an attempt to explain how God’s causing human choices is perfectly compatible with human free will, then I would have to point out three massive disanalogies:
(i) in crime novels, it’s one of the characters (an officer of the law) who catches up with the criminal and brings them to justice. Moreover, it is only the characters in the story (not the author) who blame the murderer for his/her actions, and denounce him/her as an evil person when they discover the truth. But in our case, it isn’t human characters who ultimately punish sinners (many of whom end up getting away with their crimes on Earth), but God, the author of the human drama. [For instance, many Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that God publicly pronounces sentence on sinners, on Judgment Day.] And unlike a crime novel, it isn’t just other human beings who blame and accuse these sinners: rather, it is God who says, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), and who berates the servant in the Parable of the Talents who buried his talent in a hole in the ground as a “wicked, lazy servant” (Matthew 25:26). That would be like Agatha Christie punishing Jacqueline de Bellefort, instead of Hercule Poirot, and telling her off for being a wicked, wicked woman. I’m sure my readers can readily see that it makes no sense for an author to personally blame one of their own characters for his/her misdeeds. And if God’s relationship to us is like that of an author to a character in his story, then by the same token, it makes no sense for God to blame us for our misdeeds, even if other people do;
(ii) in crime novels, the characters are not even aware that they are characters created by an author, and of course, they make no attempt to communicate with the author. Many human beings, on the other hand, are very much aware that they have a Divine Author, and some of them even communicate with Him daily, in prayer, believing that they have a religious duty to do so, since He is their Creator;
(iii) in crime novels, the characters are incapable of defying the will of the author: they simply do whatever the author wishes them to do. By contrast, human beings are perfectly capable of defying the will of their Divine Author: it’s called sin.
But the irony is that Feser himself pointed out what was wrong with his own analogy in a 2011 post, titled, Are you for real?:
All the same, the world is not literally a mere story and we are not literally fictional characters…
…[P]recisely because the characters [in a story] do not exist but are purely fictional, they are not true causes the way real things are. Everything they seem to do is really done by their author: We say that Spider-Man punched out the guy who shot his uncle, but all that happened in the real world is that Steve Ditko (in collaboration with writer Stan Lee) first drew a panel in which Spider-Man punches the guy and then drew a panel in which the guy is unconscious. Strictly speaking, Spider-Man didn’t do anything, because there is no Spider-Man.
Well, if Spider-Man didn’t do anything, then he didn’t choose anything either – and neither did the bad guys he pursued in the comics that bear his name. And in that case, the guy who shot Spider-Man’s uncle did not “commit the murder of his own free will” (as Feser suggests in his analogy above) because he didn’t really murder anyone. It is therefore a mystery to me why Feser declares in the same post that he thinks the storybook analogy is “useful for helping us to understand why divine causality is not incompatible with human freedom.” Really?
I conclude that Feser’s reconciliation of Divine causation of human choices (or predestination) with human free will is radically flawed. The analogy he invokes is faulty, in three fundamental ways.
Finally, here’s a little thought experiment. Suppose that after you die, you find yourself confronting a Being who reproaches you for the bad choices you made while on Earth, and says He’s going to punish you for them – and then proceeds to tell you that He caused you to make those choices! What would your reaction be? Probably an unprintable one, I imagine.
OK, now it’s time to treat yourself to a beer – and some cookies, too. Why cookies? See below.
 |
 |
(A tip for anyone thinking of visiting Australia: VB [image courtesy of Wikipedia] isn’t our best beer. Cascade Premium Lager is, IMHO. Boag’s Brewery in Launceston, Tasmania, makes some pretty good beer, too.)
God’s knowledge of what goes on in the world
But Feser isn’t finished yet. In his section on omniscience, in chapter 5 of his book, he goes on to explain that it would be an anthropomorphic mistake to think of God as having multiple concepts in his Mind, or entertaining various propositions. This, we are told, would conflict with the doctrine of Divine simplicity (defended by classical theists of all stripes), which means that God is totally and utterly devoid of parts: He doesn’t even have any real properties, let alone the mental property of believing a certain proposition (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK) to be true.
So how does God know what we’re up to? Does He perhaps have a single super-proposition in His Mind, which is a conjunction of all true statements? That won’t work, either: as Feser points out, the super-proposition “will itself have component parts,” contradicting Divine simplicity. Instead, Feser proposes two more analogies of his own:
A better, though still imperfect, way to understand the nature of God’s knowledge would be to think in terms of analogies like the following. From a beam of white, various beams of colored light can be derived by passing it through a prism. Though the colors are not separated out until the beam reaches the prism, they are still in the white light in a unified way. From a lump of dough, cookies of various shapes can be derived by means of cookie cutters. Though the various cookies with their particular shapes are not separated out until the cutters are applied to the dough, they are still on the uncut dough virtually. Now, God is pure actuality, whereas every kind of created thing represents a different way in which actuality might be limited by potentiality. That is to say, each created thing is comparable to one of the specific colors that might be derived from the white light that contains all of them, or is like one of the many cookie shapes which might be derived from the dough which contains all of them. God’s creation of the world is thus like the passing of white light through a prism or the application of the cutters to the dough. The prism draws out, from the color spectrum which is contained in a unified way in the white light, a particular beam of this color and a particular beam of that color, and the cutters draw out, from the variety of possible cookies contained in a unified way in the lump of dough, a cookie of this particular shape and a cookie of that particular shape. Similarly, creation involves drawing out, from the unlimited actuality that is God, various limited ways of being actual.…
Now, just as if you knew the white light perfectly, you would know all the colors which could be derived from it, and if you knew the lump of dough perfectly, you would know all the shapes which might be carved out of it, so too, perfectly to know that which is pure actuality would entail knowing all the various limited ways of being actual which might be derived from it. And that is how God knows all of the various kinds of finitely actual things which exist or might exist – by virtue of perfectly knowing himself as that which is pure or unlimited actuality. (2017, pp. 215-216)
Now, Feser is very careful to point out that the foregoing illustration is just an analogy, and a highly imperfect one at that: for example, “created things are not made out of God in the way cookies are made out of dough” (2017, p. 216). But theological errors of this sort do not concern me greatly. When using an analogy, there is one and only one thing I expect it to do well: represent accurately the specific state of affairs which it’s meant to be an analogy of. If it can explain that one little thing which it’s meant to shed light on, then I’ll forgive whatever additional deficiencies it might possess.
In this case, the “one little thing” that I’m asking Feser’s twin analogies to shed light on is God’s ability to know everything that happens in the world, without knowing it propositionally (as that, according to Feser, is precluded by God’s simplicity). At the very best, Feser’s analogies relating to light and cookies only serve to explain how God could know what might happen, in a simple fashion. But in the light illustration, we need to know about the size, shape and positioning of the prism, if we wish to know what color of light can actually be seen. And if we want to know what kinds of cookies are actually made by the chef, we need to know which cutters he is using. Nothing in the nature of light or dough will tell us anything about the actual choice of colors or cookies that was made. And likewise, nothing in the nature of God as unlimited actuality will tell us (or Him) about what actually happens in the real world.
“But surely God could know what happens, simply by knowing His own choices when creating the world and all that is in it?” I hear you suggest. Indeed he could – assuming for the moment (as Feser does) that God knows what happens in the world by causing it to happen. But here’s the thing: just as the size, shape and positioning of the prism (which determines what color light we actually see) is something complex, and just as the shapes of the various cutters (which determine what cookies we actually eat) are also complex, so too, the specific choices God makes when causing the world to be in its present form are complex, not simple: “Yes, I want lions in my world; no, I don’t want unicorns; yes, I decree that Lee Harvey Oswald will kill JFK and thereby change the course of American history; no, he won’t kill Jackie or Governor Connally.” And so on. The whole point of Feser’s light and cookie analogies was to explain how God could know about these events without in any way compromising His simplicity. But it is precisely on this point that the analogies fail.
Let us recall Feser’s earlier remark that God knows the world “by virtue of knowing his own thoughts and intentions as an author.” I respectfully submit that it would be impossible for anyone (God included) to make a warts-and-all world like ours with a single, simple thought.
Until and unless someone can suggest a better analogy than Feser’s light and cookie analogies, I am forced to conclude that the notion that God could have simple, non-propositional knowledge of earthly affairs is a nonsensical one, just as I am forced to reject Feser’s reconciliation of God’s causing our choices with our making them freely.
Time for another beer, I’d say. What do readers think? Over to you.
Fwiw, I think God may have gotten my name wrong. Which I guess is understandable. I mean, there are a lot of Horns.
But that would explain the whole business with our refrigerator drawers, which I really don’t think has any other decent explanation.
As I’ve said here before:
1. Don’t mistake the arguments I make for views I personally hold, and
2. My views change over time.
I don’t think I ever said god was infinitely simple, nor did I say in this argument/model (which represents my actual current views) that god had/has a purpose. Obviously, from what I said, there is no purpose (from the whole-god “perspective”) to existence because it was never “created” or planned. “This” is just what God is.
All possible universes, states of existence and perspectives exist. That’s just the nature of what God is.
William,
In other words: “Don’t hold me responsible for anything I say. The opinions expressed in my comments are not mine.”
Um, yeah, and with ridiculous frequency. That’s kind of the point.
You crack me up, William.
Which is it? In either of the quotes from you that I posted, were you positing a view arguendo, or has your worldview fundamentally evolved since Christmas?
By existence, I mean the totality of all existence. Like a square circle, a finite existence is impossible to imagine. For something to be finite, it must be finite in relation to something else. We can imagine finite objects inside the totality of existence because there are other things that define that particular thing’s border, so to speak. What defines the border of existence? Non-existence? Non-existence is impossible to imagine.
William,
No, that’s not what finite means. The “totality of existence” could in fact be finite. There’s nothing incoherent about that.
I’m presenting my current views here; if you want to discuss them, then do so.
I didn’t say that was what finite means.
Sure.
For starters, do you believe the matter and energy contained within the Universe came into existence at the singularity of the Big Bang?
Just because you can say a thing, like “square circle”, doesn’t mean it’s not incoherent.
RoyLT:
William:
This is what it’s like arguing with William. One day he believes A, without thinking things through, and he’ll vehemently defend it with his trademarked “inexorable logic”. Later he’ll realize that he got it wrong, quietly abandon it, and argue just as vehemently for a contradictory position B.
No discipline whatsoever.
William,
What, specifically, is incoherent about “the totality of existence” being finite?
No. Nothing “comes into existence”. Everything exists. Has always existed, will always exist in an eternal “now”.
I’ve already said it; anything finite requires something to be finite in relation to.
No, William. That’s as silly as arguing that the totality of space must be infinite, because it could only be finite with respect to a larger space.
Both profound and profoundly true IMHO.
keiths,
You and I apparently have different motivations, I think, when we contribute here. My goal here is not about convincing others or asserting my views as “true” or “how reality is”, but rather to explore my own views using whatever criticism this particular meat grinder venue can provide. Hopefully, such criticisms can help me see them from different perspectives and have to think about whatever challenges come up.
I don’t hold my beliefs to represent “true reality”; rather, I hold them as useful tools, which I can discard easily and also pick up other tools easily. So yes, my views are not “completely thought out” (whatever that would mean) because I’m always in the process of evaluating them, tweaking them, changing them.
That depends on what you mean by “space”. If you mean space as in what lies between stars, it’s a categorical error. Space is a thing inside the totality of existence and can be finite in relationship to other things. For example, if a snow globe held all the water in the universe, it doesn’t require “more water” outside of the snow globe in order to be finite. Existence is not the same as “space”, if that’s what you mean by “space”.
William J. Murray,
It’s fine not to be sure about stuff and to be exploring various positions. But it would be nice, then, if you didn’t always put them in a cocksure manner as if you believed you were reading them from a holy tablet. Your criticisms of other’s positions are expressed in a similar (if not even more obno) fashion.
If you put your thoughts as questions or suggestions, you would not as frequently be confronted with simple refutations and the painful realization that much of what you proclaim here is not much good.
William J. Murray,
Here, you’re simply confusing ‘infinite’ with ‘unbounded.’
walto, to William:
An example of the latter:
You don’t know that, William, but you’re proclaiming it as if it were certain.
You’re not in a position to do that, because your thinking is simply too poor. Your confusion over the infinite is just the latest example of that.
Walto, Keiths,
You are, of course, free to not participate in the discussion if you don’t like my writing style or are offended by what you perceive as my attitude, or find my views too poorly thought out for a meaningful response or challenge. Of course, you are always free to engage in the usual insults and innuendos, if that is what you prefer.
I’ve already gotten several interesting tidbits worth mulling over from this discussion. I appreciate the challenges that draw out these interesting lines of thought. When I responded to Keiths’ question with “a finite totality of existence isn’t possible”, that was really interesting. I hadn’t even thought of that until right then. It’s my view that existence is infinite, but I hadn’t even considered the idea that a finite totality of existence isn’t even possible.
Care to clear up my confusion?
It’s basically in Keith’s posts on this above. Nothing requires a space or even a universe to be infinite. If something is a universe there’s nothing else (so it’s unonstrained by anything else), but that doesn’t entail that it is infinite.
William,
You’re the kind of guy who writes entire books that he later regrets:
Keep that in mind when you get the urge to pontificate or to declare something a matter of “inexorable logic”.
You’re here to learn from people who are better (and more disciplined) at thinking.
It might refute a strawman god who has similar constraints as human observers but it does not refute a non-temporal, non-spacial, omniscient, tri-personal sovereign God.
peace
Tri-personal and yet simple. Cool. Look out Vishnu, here comes Megatron!!
An old comment on William’s unfortunate tendencies:
Not only is God self-revelatory but thanks to his Holy Spirit he is self-interpreting.
Of course people can be mistaken deliberately or unintentionally but we should always endeavor to think his thoughts after him and any successful effort to understand God will do just that. Asking for his help is a good place to start.
In the end God will be understood fully because he will ensure that will happen.
quote:
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
(1Co 13:12)
end quote:
peace
William:
Sure. You wrote:
There doesn’t need to be a border in order for something to be finite. Space can be closed and finite, yet borderless.
My recommendation for you: More learning, less fantasizing.
Personality does not add complexity to God. It’s not a component or process or gizmo that is added to his existence like an extra liver.
A real human is not more complex than a philosophical zombie.
A human body does not become less complex the instant it is no longer a person.
peace
Give me a break, fifth. You conceive of the three persons in the Trinity as interacting with each other. You’ve said so many times.
A system of three interacting persons is more complex than a single person.
keiths,
Of course it is. But fifth wants both simplicity AND a threesome, and he’s ready to insist on it–even if that means quoting scripture.
Get it? Similarly, he says necessary exististence and simplicity aren’t different properties. And that’s final!!!😡😡😡
Walto,
I know some time ago I pointed you to Edward’s essay on the Trinity
here it is again
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html
Here is a more modern take from a Roman Catholic perspective
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/07/11/how-god-is-incomprehensible-simple-and-a-trinity/
These should help you to get a handle on how God can be both simple and a Trinity
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I remember. Those are still just poorly argued theses, fifth, not stuff you should be relying on. I mean, you can find people to defend any cracked claim (many of them even post here). But three will always be more complicated than one, and necessary existence will never be the same property as simplicity (even if one and the same item somehow managed to exemplify both of them).
I’m sorry, but some things are just true. That some of your views are not among those things is just an unpleasant fact about the world.
ETA: if it’s any consolation, a vast number of my beliefs aren’t in there either. Alas.
fifth,
By claiming that the three persons of the Trinity interact with each other, as you are so fond of doing, you undermine your claim regarding divine simplicity.
Them’s the breaks. It’s not as if God is revealing this stuff to you, after all.
God is not three as apposed to one. That would be Tri-theism
God is a Trinity.
Why not?? Is there anything that you can name that has necessary existence that is not simple?
If a necessarily existing thing is compound are all of the parts equally necessary?
peace
I agree,and truth would exist even if nothing else did.
Truth also has no parts, if it did you could deconstruct it so that it would not always be true that “somethings are just true”.
Truth is both necessarily existing and simple. In fact the simplicity is tied up in necessary existence
peace
(A) doesn’t matter whether I can name any necessarily existing objects that aren’t simple. Even if they were necessarily co-exemplified, that wouldn’t make them the same property.
(B) complex entities don’t have to have parts at all, never mind separable parts.
Your posts on this stuff are not good.
When a Christian speaks of divine simplicity what he means is the opposite of compound not easy to understand.
quote:
1) God has no spatial parts (spatial simplicity).
2) God has no temporal parts (temporal simplicity).
3) God is without the sort of metaphysical complexity where God would have different parts which are distinct from himself (property simplicity).
end quote:
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
peace
Can you name any simple things (in the relevant sense) that are not necessarily existing?
peace
You
That is certainly possible I never claimed to be a great communicator.
If you have specific clarifying questions I will be happy to answer them
If you don’t feel like doing that here is a book that might help you to get a better understanding.
Keep in mind this is not an obscure or new doctrine and folks a lot smarter than you or I have been fleshing it out for literally thousands of years.
I won’t promise that you will be satisfied with the answers that are given but I’m sure there is not an objection that you could think of that has not been kicked around previously somewhere.
peace
I certainly have parts.
Perhaps you meant the other kind of simple 😉
peace
fifth:
dazz:
🙂
fifth,
For “fleshing it out”, substitute “rationalizing”.
Religion makes people very, very stupid (if they aren’t already).
Hah. That’s definitely true, but you should know that this “fleshing out” has not resulted in anything favorable to your views on this matter. Quite the contrary. Your (the minority) position has always been the subject of criticisms which are completely correct, and the responses have always been feeble, confused and, generally, extremely poor.
Again, I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Don’t blame the messengers.
walto:
fifth:
He’s not talking about (just) your communication skills, fifth.
That God is simple is certainly the majority position of Christian thought down through the ages though it has been challenged from time to time. Of course I would hope you would agree that the popularity of a position is not an indicator of it’s merit.
If it was we would all be Trump supporters
If you have any specific criticism you want to discuss I’m all ears.
Simply declaring your position to be the correct one for a Christian seems a little presumptuous especially since you don’t think it’s rational to believe that a non-simple deity exists either.
peace