07 Mar '08 06:50>
Probably many of you are familiar with theological fatalism, which roughly claims that the existence of human free will (of a libertarian sort) is precluded by some aspect of God's nature. The purpose of this thread is to foster discussion concerning the soundness of such arguments. I have come to believe all such fatalist arguments I have seen are unsound, but maybe somebody here can convince me otherwise. To start the discussion, I will informally develop forms of the argument that are common to forums such as this, and I will try to explain why I don't find these arguments convincing.
The basic argument is roughly along the following lines. Suppose that God exists and that He is omniscient. Then, He knows the content of all your willings before they occur in advance. But then all your willings are determined and you cannot will other than what you do, in fact, will. Thus libertarian free will cannot exist if such a God exists.
This argument seems to me to be very weak. First of all, what does it really have to do with the subject of God? As far as I can see, from the idea that there exists an omniscient God it doesn’t necessarily follow that He knows our future willings. I think this requires the additional premise that statements about our future willings have determinate truth values (as opposed to, say, probabilistically indexed ones). But, if we are going to assume that statements about future willings have determinate truth values, then I fail to see how this argument really has anything substantively to do with the premise of God. Retaining all the same impact, one could simply say that statements about the contents of your future willings have determinate truth values; thus, your future willing are determined; thus you cannot will other than what you in fact do will. This doesn't seem convincing to me. To preclude libertarian free will, I think we need to establish a certain necessity about our willings (in a sense that they could not be otherwise). But from the fact that you will choose to A tomorrow at time T (let's suppose this is in fact the case), how does it follow that your choosing to A at time T is in any sense necessary? Obviously the following is necessarily true: if it is true that you will A at time T, then you will A at time T. But this sort of argument for fatalism seems to me to rest on something completely different that is generally false: that if it is true that you will A at time T, then you must A at time T (or if it is true that you will A at at time T, then it is necessary that you A at time T). I see no reason to accept this, and thus I don't find this sort of argument convincing.
The fatalist can counter that the critical idea is not just that God knows our future willings; but rather that God knows infallibly our future willings. I would say that I fail to see how this improves the argument. I would say infallibility just has to do with the epistemic process: to say that God infallibly knows P is to say that He knows P in a way that is free from even the possibility of epistemic error (or, I guess, to say that God knows P and that God's knowing P requires His satisfying some condition, such that it is not possible for God to satisfy this condition while P is false). But how would that establish any sort of necessity about P itself? If, say, God knows infallibly that you will A at time T tomorrow, this means it is true that you will A at time T tomorrow and that God knows this in a way that is free from the possibility of error. How does that establish that your choosing to A at time T is itself in any sense necessary? Per the discussion above, I still fail to see the connection.
Ideas?
The basic argument is roughly along the following lines. Suppose that God exists and that He is omniscient. Then, He knows the content of all your willings before they occur in advance. But then all your willings are determined and you cannot will other than what you do, in fact, will. Thus libertarian free will cannot exist if such a God exists.
This argument seems to me to be very weak. First of all, what does it really have to do with the subject of God? As far as I can see, from the idea that there exists an omniscient God it doesn’t necessarily follow that He knows our future willings. I think this requires the additional premise that statements about our future willings have determinate truth values (as opposed to, say, probabilistically indexed ones). But, if we are going to assume that statements about future willings have determinate truth values, then I fail to see how this argument really has anything substantively to do with the premise of God. Retaining all the same impact, one could simply say that statements about the contents of your future willings have determinate truth values; thus, your future willing are determined; thus you cannot will other than what you in fact do will. This doesn't seem convincing to me. To preclude libertarian free will, I think we need to establish a certain necessity about our willings (in a sense that they could not be otherwise). But from the fact that you will choose to A tomorrow at time T (let's suppose this is in fact the case), how does it follow that your choosing to A at time T is in any sense necessary? Obviously the following is necessarily true: if it is true that you will A at time T, then you will A at time T. But this sort of argument for fatalism seems to me to rest on something completely different that is generally false: that if it is true that you will A at time T, then you must A at time T (or if it is true that you will A at at time T, then it is necessary that you A at time T). I see no reason to accept this, and thus I don't find this sort of argument convincing.
The fatalist can counter that the critical idea is not just that God knows our future willings; but rather that God knows infallibly our future willings. I would say that I fail to see how this improves the argument. I would say infallibility just has to do with the epistemic process: to say that God infallibly knows P is to say that He knows P in a way that is free from even the possibility of epistemic error (or, I guess, to say that God knows P and that God's knowing P requires His satisfying some condition, such that it is not possible for God to satisfy this condition while P is false). But how would that establish any sort of necessity about P itself? If, say, God knows infallibly that you will A at time T tomorrow, this means it is true that you will A at time T tomorrow and that God knows this in a way that is free from the possibility of error. How does that establish that your choosing to A at time T is itself in any sense necessary? Per the discussion above, I still fail to see the connection.
Ideas?