Fatalism is a rather broad concept that emerges in many fields, but the one that concerns me today has to do with God's foreknowledge. In a nutshell, fatalism argues that if God foreknows that I will do something, then I have no choice but to do it. Consequently there is no human freedom.
This has significant implications for Christianity, which generally argues both that God foreknows everything, but human freedom exists. Fatalism claims that there is unresolvable contradiction between those two concepts.
Fatalism is therefore very important, because if true, then there is no reason to bother doing anything or making any decisions, because we cannot change what will happen regardless. Consequently there is no real point in life.
The English philosopher Nelson Pike put the argument for fatalism in these terms. He invites us to consider some hypothetical individual called Jones, who on Saturday afternoon mows his lawn. Since God is omniscient, then God knew many years ago that Jones would mow his lawn this Saturday afternoon. Since God is never wrong, when Saturday afternoon arrives, Jones must mow his lawn.
Pike formally expresses this as follows:
None of these arguments is particularly satisfying. They either involve watering down our view of God significantly, or adopting a static view of time which does not seem to correspond to reality.
So is there another escape route, or has the fatalist won?
The only other premise that we can dispute is (6), which lists possible escape routes. If an alternative escape route can be found, the argument collaspes. And that is the route we shall follow next time.
This has significant implications for Christianity, which generally argues both that God foreknows everything, but human freedom exists. Fatalism claims that there is unresolvable contradiction between those two concepts.
Fatalism is therefore very important, because if true, then there is no reason to bother doing anything or making any decisions, because we cannot change what will happen regardless. Consequently there is no real point in life.
The English philosopher Nelson Pike put the argument for fatalism in these terms. He invites us to consider some hypothetical individual called Jones, who on Saturday afternoon mows his lawn. Since God is omniscient, then God knew many years ago that Jones would mow his lawn this Saturday afternoon. Since God is never wrong, when Saturday afternoon arrives, Jones must mow his lawn.
Pike formally expresses this as follows:
- God's being omniscient implies that if Jones mows his lawn on Saturday afternoon, then God believed at an earlier time that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
- Necessarily, all of God's beliefs are true.
- No one has the power to make a contradiction true.
- No one has the power to erase someone's past beliefs, that is, to bring it about that something believed in the past by someone was not believed in the past by that person.
- No one has the power to erase someone's existence in the past, that is, to bring it about that someone who did exist in the past did not exist in the past.
- So if God believed that Jones would mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones can refrain from mowing only if one of these conditions is true:
(i) Jones has the power to make God's belief false.
(ii) Jones has the power to erase God's past belief.
(iii) Jones has the power to erase God's past existence. - Alternative (i) is impossible. (This follows from steps 2 and 3).
- Alternative (ii) is impossible. (This follows from step 4).
- Alternative (iii) is impossible. (This follows from step 5).
- Therefore, if God believes that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday afternoon, Jones does not have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn on Saturday afternoon.
None of these arguments is particularly satisfying. They either involve watering down our view of God significantly, or adopting a static view of time which does not seem to correspond to reality.
So is there another escape route, or has the fatalist won?
The only other premise that we can dispute is (6), which lists possible escape routes. If an alternative escape route can be found, the argument collaspes. And that is the route we shall follow next time.
Comments
Firstly, I'm not too worried with your quibble with the word 'belief'. By definition anything that God believes must be true - you could say God 'knows' instead of 'believes' if you want. I don't think it makes any difference to the argument.The more significant point is the claim that God is outside of time. If that is true, then it denies premise (1), as God doesn't believe Jones will mow the lawn before it happens - he timelessly knows that Jones mows the lawn on Saturday.However, I do not agree with this. To argue that God is outside of time you must adopt a static theory of time, which is really problematic. It requires you to deny that there is such a thing as the present.It requires the view that there is no difference between the past, present, and future. It means that the passage of time that we all experience is in fact false.In short it requires us to abandon a properly basic belief with no good reason. Consequently I have to agree with the dynamic theory of time, and consequence that God is inside of time.Thus I do not deny premise (1).
Firstly, I'm not too worried with your quibble with the word 'belief'. By definition anything that God believes must be true - you could say God 'knows' instead of 'believes' if you want. I don't think it makes any difference to the argument.The more significant point is the claim that God is outside of time. If that is true, then it denies premise (1), as God doesn't believe Jones will mow the lawn before it happens - he timelessly knows that Jones mows the lawn on Saturday.However, I do not agree with this. To argue that God is outside of time you must adopt a static theory of time, which is really problematic. It requires you to deny that there is such a thing as the present.It requires the view that there is no difference between the past, present, and future. It means that the passage of time that we all experience is in fact false.In short it requires us to abandon a properly basic belief with no good reason. Consequently I have to agree with the dynamic theory of time, and consequence that God is inside of time.Thus I do not deny premise (1).
My point was not that everyone experiences the flow of time, therefore God is in time. It is that there is such a thing as an objective 'now'.If God is outside of time, then his knowledge cannot change at all (as by definition change requires time).However, consider the tensed statement "It is now 5:30pm". It is only true if in fact it is 5:30pm.That statement is false before 5:30pm, true at 5:30pm, and then false after 5:30pm. But if God is outside of time, he cannot know if that statement is true - if he did then his knowledge would constantly be changing as events moved from the future, to present, to past.If he is outside of time, all he can know is the tenseless version of that statement which is "It is 5:30pm at 5:30pm" which is a mere tautology.Consequently, if God is outside of time, I don't think he can be omniscient - I think those beliefs are incompatible. And there is far more evidence for God's omniscience, than for him being outside of time (find me one verse that shows God is outside of time subsequent to creation).To put it another way, consider the statement, Neil Armstrong lands on the moon in 1969. God definately knows that as it is a tenseless fact. However, if God is outside of time, he cannot know if Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon yet.Consequently, I hold the view that God must be temporal subsequent to creation.Regarding your question at the end, "Did God (and Jesus) exist before time?". Before is a tricky word here as it generally implies a temporal relationship. However, a temporal relationship is nonsense in this since, as we are considering prior to time beginning (unless you hold a view like Alan Padgett where God exists in his own time). But as God is the creator of time, he is definately before it in a causal sense.
My point was not that everyone experiences the flow of time, therefore God is in time. It is that there is such a thing as an objective 'now'.If God is outside of time, then his knowledge cannot change at all (as by definition change requires time).However, consider the tensed statement "It is now 5:30pm". It is only true if in fact it is 5:30pm.That statement is false before 5:30pm, true at 5:30pm, and then false after 5:30pm. But if God is outside of time, he cannot know if that statement is true - if he did then his knowledge would constantly be changing as events moved from the future, to present, to past.If he is outside of time, all he can know is the tenseless version of that statement which is "It is 5:30pm at 5:30pm" which is a mere tautology.Consequently, if God is outside of time, I don't think he can be omniscient - I think those beliefs are incompatible. And there is far more evidence for God's omniscience, than for him being outside of time (find me one verse that shows God is outside of time subsequent to creation).To put it another way, consider the statement, Neil Armstrong lands on the moon in 1969. God definately knows that as it is a tenseless fact. However, if God is outside of time, he cannot know if Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon yet.Consequently, I hold the view that God must be temporal subsequent to creation.Regarding your question at the end, "Did God (and Jesus) exist before time?". Before is a tricky word here as it generally implies a temporal relationship. However, a temporal relationship is nonsense in this since, as we are considering prior to time beginning (unless you hold a view like Alan Padgett where God exists in his own time). But as God is the creator of time, he is definately before it in a causal sense.
My point was not that everyone experiences the flow of time, therefore God is in time. It is that there is such a thing as an objective 'now'.If God is outside of time, then his knowledge cannot change at all (as by definition change requires time).However, consider the tensed statement "It is now 5:30pm". It is only true if in fact it is 5:30pm.That statement is false before 5:30pm, true at 5:30pm, and then false after 5:30pm. But if God is outside of time, he cannot know if that statement is true - if he did then his knowledge would constantly be changing as events moved from the future, to present, to past.If he is outside of time, all he can know is the tenseless version of that statement which is "It is 5:30pm at 5:30pm" which is a mere tautology.Consequently, if God is outside of time, I don't think he can be omniscient - I think those beliefs are incompatible. And there is far more evidence for God's omniscience, than for him being outside of time (find me one verse that shows God is outside of time subsequent to creation).To put it another way, consider the statement, Neil Armstrong lands on the moon in 1969. God definately knows that as it is a tenseless fact. However, if God is outside of time, he cannot know if Neil Armstrong has landed on the moon yet.Consequently, I hold the view that God must be temporal subsequent to creation.Regarding your question at the end, "Did God (and Jesus) exist before time?". Before is a tricky word here as it generally implies a temporal relationship. However, a temporal relationship is nonsense in this since, as we are considering prior to time beginning (unless you hold a view like Alan Padgett where God exists in his own time). But as God is the creator of time, he is definately before it in a causal sense.