I recently finished Robert Adams' old article "The Virtue of Faith" (chapter 1 of the book The Virtue of Faith), and I found a really interesting point. Uncertainty and faith are necessary for a certain sort of special good in a relationship. I think it's worth quoting Adams on this:
The standard view of an everlasting God is that God has existed in time for an infinite amount of time and will continue to exist for an infinite amount of time, and a finite amount of time ago, creation sprang into being. Thus, God existed a year ago, a billion years ago, a trillion years ago, and so on. (I think, though I shall not argue for this here, that if one denies God's atemporality, one should adopt the standard view on pain of believing something theologically much worse, such as that God has a finite age or that creation is infinitely old. So if the standard view of everlastingness is false, then God is not atemporal.)
I shall talk of the universe springing into being a finite amount of time ago rather than its' being created a finite amount of time ago, to disambiguate between the time of the cause (God's act of creating) and the time of the effect (the universe's springing into being).
Problem 1 (Augustine's problem): Why did God wait this infinite amount of time before the universe sprang into being, rather than, say, making the universe spring into being a hundred years earlier? Augustine records the old chestnut that God was busy preparing a hell for those who ask such questions. His own answer that time began with the universe's springing into being is not available to the defender of the standard view. One might take a relational view of time on which the question does not make sense--the world where God create a hundred years earlier is the same world. Only a B-theorist can say that, and not every B-theorist can.
Problem 2 (Deliberation and omniscience): Suppose God at t0 is deliberating what should spring into being and when it should do so. But God being omniscient already knows what will spring into being and when it will do so. How can one deliberate over what one already knows?
Some, but not all, open futurists deny excluded middle for future contingents. Thus, they deny that either there will or there will not be a sea battle tomorrow. Here is an inductive argument to the contrary: A sea battle typically requires a conflict between naval powers that has been brewing for some time. Such a conflict is probably not brewing right now. Therefore, probably, there will be no sea battle tomorrow. But if there will be no sea battle tomorrow, then there will or will not be a sea battle tomorrow (disjunction-introduction). Hence, there will or will not be a sea battle tomorrow. But if there will or will not be a sea battle tomorrow, views that deny excluded middle for future contingents are false.
Consider two claims about God's knowledge.
Here is the argument that (2)-(4) entail (1). Fix any true p. By (4), let q be any proposition such that possibly God knows q and possibly God knows not-q. If q holds, then let r=q. If q does not hold, then let r=not-q. Note that r is true. Observe that possibly God knows not-r (if r=q, then this follows from the fact that God possibly knows not-p; if r=not-q, then this follows from the fact that God possibly knows q as well as (3), since q tautologically implies not-r). Let s be the proposition (p or not-r). Then, God possibly knows s. For God possibly knows not-r, and in any world where God knows not-r, God also knows (p or not-r) by (3). Now, s is true as p is true. Therefore, s is a proposition that is true and possibly known by God. Therefore, by (2), God knows s. Moreover, r is a true proposition, and God possibly knows r (since God possibly knows q and God possibly knows not-q). Therefore, God knows r, by (2). But s is (p or not-r). By (3), it follows that God knows p, since (s and r) tautologically implies p.
So if one attempts to limit omniscience by saying that omniscience only means that God knows things that God can know, or that God only knows things that possibly are known by someone (which also entails (2)), one hasn't limited omniscience at all: God still ends up knowing all true propositions, assuming (3) and (4). Is there some other way of non-arbitrarily limiting omniscience? I am not sure. But, fortunately, there is no need to limit omniscience. God knows all truths.
If open future views are true, I think it is puzzling that we have so many propositional attitudes about future propositions that we are in a position to know for sure are not true. We intend, fear or hope (or al three at once!) that something will happen, though the propositions that are the objects of our intentions, fears or hopes are typically ones that, according to open future views, either lack truth value or are false, and sometimes even necessarily false (thus, on the view of Rhoda et al., propositions saying that someone will freely do something are necessarily false). In fact, much of our life is spent dealing with these allegedly non-true propositions. These propositional attitudes are sometimes inappropriate, but sometimes quite appropriate. If one has the intuition that our lives as emoters and agents should be centered on reality, the sheer amount of life appropriately spent in concern about the future will be in tension with open future views.
I've been thinking what open future (OF) views can say about the modality of statements about the future. There are two OF semantics, which I'll call N and F. Suppose Curley now exists, and that Curley's freely taking the bribe is open. On the N semantics, Curley will freely take the bribe is neither true nor false. On the F semantics, it is false that Curley will freely take the bribe. The N semantics requires denial of excluded middle. The F semantics requires denial of the principle that, basically, not(will(p)) iff will(not(p)).
Suppose now that we say that a proposition p possibly/necessarily/impossibly is V iff p is V in some/all/no worlds, where V is a truth value or a logical combination of truth values like "neither true nor false", which I will abbreviate "ntnf". Let p be the proposition that Curley will freely take the bribe. On the F semantics, p is false in every world. For in some worlds Curley's freely taking the bribe is open, and in those worlds p is false by that semantics. And in all other worlds, it is determined that Curley won't freely take the bribe (e.g., because it is determined that there is no Curley, or that nobody will ever offer Curley a bribe, or whatever). So, in every world, p is false, and so p is necessarily false.
On the N semantics, things are more interesting. In worlds where Curley's freely taking the bribe is open, p is ntnf. In worlds where Curley's freely taking the bribe is not open, p is false. Therefore, on the N semantics, p is possibly ntnf and possibly false, and necessarily not true.
So what's wrong with this? Well, one thing is that as Geoff Pynn pointed out in the previous discussion of open futurism, the open futurist surely wants to say that p is a "future contingent". But if p is necessarily false, as it is on the F semantics, then that's endangered. And if p is necessarily not true, then it's also in a bit of trouble.
I was talking w/Alan Rhoda at the Central APA, and I discussed with him the following counterintuitive implication of versions of open theism which say that all future contingents (or sentences about freely willed acts) are not true.
me: I bet that Curley will take the bribe tomorrow.
Alan: I don't think he will.
me: let's bet!
Alan: okay.
Tomorrow comes. Curley takes the bribe.
me: I was right!
Alan: I guess you were!
It seems that when I say "I was right!" I am ascribing truth to the sentence I uttered the day before. And intuitively, I speak truth when I ascribe truth to the sentence I uttered the day before. And if it is true that I correctly ascribe truth to the sentence I uttered the day before, then I did speak truth the day before. But some versions of open theism are committed to the counterintuitive implication that I did not speak truth the day before (i.e., utter a true sentence).
Two points: not all versions of open theism have to deal with this (e.g. Hasker's). Secondly, I take this only to be some degree of negative evidence against open theism; perhaps there is more positive evidence for open theism.
I've heard this objection a lot in conversation, though I haven't seen it in the literature. If I were an open theist, I'd just say that ordinary people have false views about the future, and so they are speaking incorrectly in these cases. Are there better ways out of this problem? Has there been any literature on this?
It seems to me that some folks--perhaps not philosophers--think that Open Theism (OT) somehow significantly helps with the Problem of Evil. But I do not think it does. The natural reason to think OT helps is to say that if an omnipotent God foreknows that George will freely do some evil E, then God can prevent George from doing E, and OT means that God can't foreknow it, so we can't blame God for failing to prevent E. But this is confused. For it would be impossible for God to both foreknow--or even forebelieve--E and prevent E. Foreknowledge does let God put plans for an event into effect before the event happens, but for actual prevention of foreknown evils, what would be needed is Middle Knowledge, not foreknowledge.
I am curious if any philosophers have committed the error I criticize here.
Consider the following (non-deductive) line of reasoning in favor of an open future (cf. Rhoda, et al.):
Now, consider the same line of reasoning with a past/present swap and a causal direction swap:
Now I think 2a-d is precisely as compelling as 1a-d (in my view, neither is very compelling). There may be a difference, however, at step e in both cases. We have good reason to believe 1e, because of libertarian free will and quantum indeterminism. Do we have good reason to believe 2e? If we either believe in essentiality of origins or think that God is in time and his memories are caused by the state of affairs of which they are the memories, then we have some reason to deny 2e. Otherwise, it seems we would need to accept 2e--after all, apart from something like essentiality of origins and the issue of God's memories, it seems like typically the effects produced by one cause, C1, could have been produced by another, C2. Thus, unless we believe in essentiality of origins or think that God is in time and has memories caused by the state of affairs of which they are the memories, if we accept 1a-f, we should likewise accept 2a-f. But 2f is absurd. Hence, we should likewise be very suspicious of argument 1 and its conclusion 1f.
This is an attempt to make precise something I said in the comments to my previous post, and analyze it. Let T(p) be the claim that p is true. Work with epistemic probabilities. Assume the following three principles:
But in writing this argument out rigorously, it became clear that there is a way in which it begs the question against those defenders of OF who deny excluded middle. For (3) implies a probabilified version of the axiom of double negation (the axiom of double negation is: not-not-p entails p), and double negation has to be denied by those who deny excluded middle. So the defender of OF can get out of the argument if she denies the axiom of double negation, and gives a propositional probability theory compatible with that denial. But to deny double negation is to go pretty far down the road of implausibility--all reductio arguments go down the drain at that point. Of course one might maintain double negation for non-future-tensed claims, but that's ad hoc.
The following argument is sound:
Suppose I have a new account of, say, omnipotence. Presumably, I still want to still claim that the attribute that I have given an account of is sufficiently close to the traditional understanding of the attribute that we are talking about the same attribute, and I am not simply denying that God has omnipotence in the traditional understanding, but clarifying. This is going to be a vague matter to some degree. But I do want to propose one necessary condition: My understanding of the attribute should be compatible with what my religious tradition takes to be central, paradigm cases of the exercise of that attribute.
An account of divine justice on which rewarding the just simply was not an option would depart too far from the traditional understanding, since rewarding the just is a paradigm case of the exercise of divine justice according to the tradition. Likewise, creation and miracles are paradigm cases of the exercise of omnipotence. An account of omnipotence on which one of these two was impossible would not be an account of omnipotence. This is true even if the account accepted traditional verbage like: "God can do anything that's logically possible", but added that creation or miracles are logically impossible.
On the other hand, if one departs somewhat from traditional wording, but keeps the paradigm cases, one has more of a hope of maintaining that one is merely clarifying. Thus, even if one is not willing to say that God can do anything that's logically possible, because one says that suicide is logically possible but God cannot do it, instead opting for some view like that God is the first cause in all possible worlds, or that God can do anything that it is logically possible that God can do, vel caetera, as long as one maintains the paradigm cases of omnipotence from the tradition, one might be just clarifying.
But the Christian tradition, I claim, sees two particularly impressive and noteworthy cases of omniscience--knowing what is in the depths of the human heart and knowing future contingents. It is impressive that God knows how many hairs I have. But that is something that creatures can figure out, too. It is impressive that God knows all mathematical theorems. But since a theorem is, by definition, provable, a creature could in principle know it. These kinds of knowledge, while impressive, are not very different from the knowledge that creatures we have. But the tradition, I think, takes knowledge of the contents of our mind, as well as knowledge of future contingents, to be the paradigm impressive examples of omniscience.
If one does not save paradigm cases like these, one has not clarified the traditional understanding of omniscience but one has rejected it. This is so even if one says: "God knows everything that is true", but denies that there are true non-tautological propositions about the future. If one does that, then one is no more a believer in omniscience, than someone who thinks God can do everything logically possible but who denies that creation is possible is a believer in omnipotence.
