Is it scriptural to claim that God lacks knowledge concerning some matters? Are there times when God is nescient? Maybe it is better to say that God knows indeterminate states, facts and properties indeterminately, and he possibly knows future contingents in a contingent way (William of Ockham). At least two factors indicate that Jehovah might know indeterminate data indeterminately.
1) Quantum mechanics may provide an example of something that God knows
indeterminately: he possibly knows the position or the momentum of a
subatomic particle indeterminately, but not with infallible certainty. One source explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa. This is contrary to classical Newtonian physics which holds all variables of particles to be measurable to an arbitrary uncertainty given good enough equipment.
2) I would submit that human
actions are potentially indeterminate; it would seem that God knows such
actions indeterminately or possibly with a degree of certainty before they happen, but not exhaustively. The Insight book and other WT publications have advanced the view that God could have selective foreknowledge. If true, there would be things that God could choose to know or not know. This view might very well be true even if the scriptures don't give a full-blown account of how God knows what he knows.
At the end of the day, I must admit that my knowledge of how God knows future actions or what state the universe will be in 2028 is beyond me. His thoughts and ways are certainly higher than mine, and we don't know if quantum physics indicates that the universe is contingent, or does it only tell us that our knowledge is limited (ontology versus epistemology). However, I would like to make two closing observations.
I don't see matters this way. It appears that some things by their very nature are indeterminate like quantum states and human actions. Take Schrodinger's hypothetical cat, for instance. How could anyone know whether the cat is alive or dead before the superposition of quantum states collapsed to a single state? Now it is possible that an omniscient being who knows all true propositions or facts could know what the single state of the cat will be, but if the state is indeterminate, there is also the possibility that God knows the quantum state as possible. Worded another way, knowing indeterminately could mean that a subject (S) knows the possibilities but does not know exactly how matters will transpire, that is, whether the cat will be alive or dead.
Finally, these reflections impinge on God's simplicity. If God is simple (having no temporal or spatial parts nor having any composition whatsoever, and no potency/potential), then God's knowledge would not change as the world changes (simplicity implies immutability); nor would God know anything discursively or gradually--he would just know simpliciter and intuitively. If God knows things discursively or progressively, then God has some kind of potency or potential and possibly some accidental properties. Yet a simple God is not supposed to have any of these things. On the other hand, do these ideas regarding divine simplicity accurately depict Jehovah?
Source:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Heisenberg%27s_Uncertainty_Principle
13 comments:
Our science cannot cope with open systems (Patterning).
Mark Twain once said that “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.”
For a being who can see the scope of the open system, prediction is not difficult in the macro.
Yes, current science assumes the universe is closed, not open (the closed causal continuum): even theologians usually argue that the future is closed and they look askance at open theism (a so-called heresy). On the other hand, is there not a sense in which history repeats itself?
While I reject "hard determinism" (Baruch Spinoza and John Calvin), it must be conceded that we have obvious constraints on our existential freedom.
I'm all for an open system, but you're swimming against the tide when you affirm it. Nevertheless, I agree that a being with such powers could easily predict the future.
Pierre-Simon Laplace also wrote: "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
However, the main point of the blog entry was how God's omniscience and his purported simplicity might work together.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Now what bothers me about this is historically devine simplicity is that it is argued by Christian theologians, but this article makes no mention of biblical pointers to this belief.
https://hilo.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm
In some ways this reminds me of the old theories of the time spans to grow a diamond from carbon. Millions of years of extreme pressure. Now we have the ability to actually grow diamond with much less pressure and in just months with the addition of a catalyst. It is now thought that pressure and time would never be enough without the catalyst.
An electron microscope holds an electron and measures it's state. The method of measurement is fundamentally flawed. IMO the path of electrons are as predictable as the planets, we just need a better telescope.
There are a lot of discussions on this... I find the Dynamic Omniscience and Open Theism really satisfying.
Also, your last part on simplicity makes me think about the paper "The aloneness argument against classical theism" by Schmid and Mullins
Thanks for these thoughts Foster, I think if one says things like "God knows the state of the universe in 2028 exhaustively" or "God could know the state of the universe in 2028 exhaustively," there are only a few options as to what one could mean, one is that the state of the universe in 2028 is just a matter of fact to be known, or that God could have the ability to make the state of the universe in 2028 a matter of fact to be known, if it's the latter then "know" is really a cypher for "cause."
One could say "God knows every possible state of the universe in 2028, God could realize one possible state, or God could allow free agents to contribute to the the realization of a possible state," which I think maintains both libertarian free will and God's omniscience and omnipotence, and can fit with the biblical data as I see it.
The problem with divine simplicity, is that it developed out of the neo-platonic and aristotilean framework, which I don't think should be taken on uncritically, one can affirm the kind of things divine simplicity is trying to preserve (aseity, infinity, etc etc) without taking on the framework that leads on to this kind of simplicity.
The bible certainly affirms aseity, God as absolute creator, infinity, etc, but it doesn't assume an aristotilean neo-platonic framework.
Duncan, I find this quote from statistician George Box enlightening:
All models are approximations. Assumptions, whether implied or clearly stated, are never exactly true. All models are wrong, but some models are useful. So, the question you need to ask is not “is the model true?” (it never is) but “Is the model good enough for this particular application."
I quote it in my essay here: https://macrinamagazine.com/issue-6-general/guest/2021/01/23/love-beauty-and-the-demonic-as-saturated-phenomena/
Duncan, I think simplicity results from a set of metaphysical assumptions imposed upon Scripture. Of course, I've talked with some Catholic thinkers who argue that the simplicity of God arises from reflection on the Bible and the kind of God he's portrayed to be, but I find the doctrine more abstruse than biblical.
Nevertheless, see https://reformedforum.org/divine-simplicity-dont-think-of-god-without-it/
Krava, I like many things that R.T. Mullins is doing and I'm sympathetic to many of his views. I've read Schmid too, and he's an interesting and bright thinker. However, as you know, there's some pushback against these ideas from Ed Feser and other Catholic philosophers. But Mullins and Schmid continue to hand in there. Thanks!
More later
Duncan, that's a question that still entertains particple physicists last I heard: are electrons predictable or not?
"Now recall that these particles are matter waves subject to Heisenberg's principle. The indeterminacy in the momentum of the electron must be small. For only then are we assured that the momentum of the electron remains close enough to zero for it to remain trapped by the attraction of the nucleus. If the indeterminacy is large, we cannot preclude the possibility that the electron has a sufficiently large momentum to escape."
See https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_waves/index.html
Also: "No less of an authority than Albert Einstein was always uncomfortable with the whole wave function/probability distribution/fundamental uncertainty 'thing' which is central to quantum mechanics. As he once famously said, 'God does not play dice.' However, the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics comes straight from the basic mathematics of the theory, and as Niels Bohr famously replied to Einstein, 'God not only plays dice, he throws them where they cannot be seen.'"
See https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/The%20Website/plates/Plate%201.html
We always benefit from your comments, Roman. Both Aquinas and Scotus have interesting things to say about God's knowledge: I think Scotus argues that God knows the future because he wills it. While his thought takes complicated turns, I believe it's fair to depict his theology in this way.
I like the idea that we contribute to the universe's future states. The other day at a faculty meeting, one of my colleagues said that everything basically happens to us: we have no control over life, our careers or what we become. I'm thinking about emailing him, but I intensely disagree with that viewpoint, which sounds like hard determinism to me. When he made that statement, I thought about John Sanders' "God Who Risks" concept. That sounds more scriptural to me, even if I would also tweak Sanders' view.
For me, the Aristotelian, Neo-platonic and Platonic assumptions are problematic for theism. Even Aquinas had to do some thorough modifications to synthesize Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, and he tried importing some Neoplatonism too.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/escape-from-the-nucleus-i/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full
That last link is great, thanks. But it will challenge the weak math people like me :-)
It's still interesting to me: I like a challenge.
Post a Comment