Foreknowledge and Freewill

In the past, I have often argued against the position that human free will could exist in a universe with a God who possessed foreknowledge. My reason for holding counter to this position was much the same as everyone else's reason who held the position: If God knows the future, then the future is known; if the future is known, then the future is already set; if the future is already set, then there is nothing we can do to change it; if we cannot change the future, then there is no human free will.

Recently, however, I have come to question this counter position. I am no longer entirely convinced that a God possessing foreknowledge invalidates human free will—not that I am convinced that it doesn't invalidate it, either. So, why do I no longer see the matter as settled and clear-cut? Allow me to explain.

Knowledge

The bulk of the reasoning that led me down this alternate path involves an understanding of 'knowledge'. It occurred to me that the conventional understanding of 'knowledge' is faulty. Knowledge is not, as so often asserted, 'true belief', or even 'justified true belief'. Indeed, this definition so usually utilized is inappropriate because it assumes the conclusion: that the future is currently true by virtue of it being knowable; thus a knowable future is a true, and unavoidable, future.

This definition, not only being inappropriate, also fails to stand up against the typical usage of the term 'knowledge', which, coincidentally, makes no reference to truth whatsoever. In general, 'knowledge' is that which can be said to be known; or 'knowledge' is what we know. In any given epistemology—a frame work of knowledge—there are criteria for determining what can be said to be known. Anything matching these criteria are classed into the 'known' category. In this sense, 'knowledge' is simply justified thought; that is, it is any thought which can be supported by reference to epistemological criteria.¹ This, of course, is how people can know things that later turn out to be false. If we required truth as a condition of knowledge, then at each new discovery we would have to rewrite history, going into the past to declare that what everyone knew before the discovery wasn't actually known, despite the fact that they knew it. I find this preposterous, as I think anyone who considers the matter rightly should: 'knowledge' is, in part, a state of mind, and nothing we discover today can alter a state of mind held in the past; the present may affect the future, but it doesn't affect the past.

An example, I think, will be helpful. Consider evolutionary theory. All the evidence points to it as the most likely explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The present reasoning behind the theory isn't important, only to say that the evidence and reasoning are sufficient for any honest empiricist to say they 'know' evolution is true. But evolution isn't true, folks. It is the year 2115, and the newest available evidence most strongly supports a different theory for explaining the diversity of life on Earth. Do we, in 2011, change what we think of evolution? Do we stop knowing it? Of course not; we have no access to this supposed evidence; we have no access to these future discoveries. And without that evidence, we have no reason to reject evolution: we have no reason to claim we don't know it but instead know something else.

And this can really be the only case, can it not? If it were, as many suggest, that 'knowledge' must be 'true belief', then we could never say we know much of anything, as any discovered truth could, theoretically, not be true. And if it might not be true, and 'knowledge' is 'true belief', then there is little reason ever calling anything 'knowledge' that might not be true: we'd be better off saying it may or may not be 'knowledge'. And at this point, why even bother with the word? Saying that 'knowledge' is 'true belief' makes the word useless; it's a pragmatically dead position.

When people say they 'know' something, they mean that they believe they can support their proposition; they have reason to believe it is true. In this sense, 'knowledge' is what we think is true, not what we think that is true.

Foreknowledge and Free will

Even with our new definition, can foreknowledge and human free will coexist? I am comfortable at this stage saying that they can. God's foreknowledge breaks down to being nothing more than the foreknowledge of any given human—He considers current conditions and formulates hypotheses regarding future events which are then tested for accuracy when the future event occurs or should have occurred. In this way, His predictions can never be accurate—or inaccurate—at the time that they are made. Their accuracy is only determined once the events they are meant to predict come (or don't come) to pass. Yet, She can still be said to 'know' what will happen in the same way that you and I know what our best friends are going to say before they say it. But our knowledge of what they will say does not have bearing on their free will to do it or not. Thus, at t₁, God's predictions are neither right nor wrong, and so the future is not bound to happen as God has predicted it, and free will remains.

The things God predicts always come to pass.

I came to this reasoning just a few days ago, and I am still trying to work my way through it; I hope others can look over this and bring their thoughts on the matter to my attention.

SR
__________
¹The particular epistemology is somewhat irrelevant, especially in regards to comparison of human knowledge and Divine knowledge, as it is likely that God has access to information beyond the imagination of humans and so no doubt, if It uses an epistemology at all, uses one that is far unlike anything familiar to the human mind.

Agnostic Theism

As an Agnostic Theist, I hold to the belief that knowing GOD is inherently impossible; we can only define, at most, what we believe about GOD. In fact, it is this belief that underpins my usage of various theistic designations, namely: 'GOD', 'God', and 'god'.

GOD

The Unknowable TRUTH; so Unknowable, in fact, that even suggesting what is or is not possible for GOD to be supposes too much knowledge of IT. I believe GOD exists. I also believe GOD to have certain characteristics.

God

In the most basic sense, God is GOD+characteristics, i.e., God is any given characterization of GOD. Thus, I believe in GOD and God. In other words, GOD, as an Unknowable, leaves much to be desired in terms of belief and understanding; so, using my extremely limited toolbox, consisting mostly of logic, reasoning, and perception, I attempt to understand GOD, and come up with certain characteristics that I believe seem fitting. The result is a concept: God (as distinguished from the true Unknowable GOD).

god

Anything that someone might consider calling a 'god' but that is not evidently an attempt to characterize or understand GOD HERSELF. Thus, Zeus, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, and others are all gods. Superman might even be a god, if one were so inclined to regard him as such.

Charity: The GOD of Giving

Is it the Will of GOD that we do good unto others? Is GOD a GOD of lip service and empty words?

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? (Jas. 2:15–16)

On GOD

About GOD, I believe—not know, but believe—the following:

GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen.
GOD is ever-present, and undetectable.
GOD is distinct, and indistinguishable.
GOD is active in HIS¹ creation.

The Charge

I believe that GOD has created us as special beings, and that we have been endowed with the will and knowledge of right and wrong. I believe that GOD acts through HIS creation and that this includes humanity. There are certain individuals in whom I believe GOD to be/have been active. One of these individuals is Jesus of Nazareth, but there are and have been many others.

The principle sources for Jesus' life and teachings come from the four canonical gospels of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. Now, to be entirely clear, I do not believe the Charge to be a uniquely Christian phenomenon. The Charge, I believe, is a Charge from GOD ITSELF. I quote these passages due to my familiarity with them and their poignancy. In these, what does Jesus say about charity and giving to others?

Mark 10:17–22 (NRSV): As he [Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother." ' He said to him, 'Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.' Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.' When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Luke 6:32–38 (NRSV): 'If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.'

What becomes really telling in the Gospel of Matthew is the 'parable' of the judging of the nations told in Chapter 25, vv. 31–46. Here Jesus tells what the deciding criteria will be at the time of Judgement. First, the King will tell the people on his right that they may inherit the Kingdom. The reason he gives them is this:

Matt. 25:35–36 (NRSV): ... I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

You would think this would be a great deal for those on the right: they've just been granted eternal life in the Kingdom of God. But that doesn't settle it with them, and they just have to ask:

Matt. 25:37–39 (NRSV): ... "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?"

As far as they are concerned, they have never done anything for the King; they don't even admit to having acknowledged his leadership or existence! How could all of this stuff they did for others have bearing on their relationship with the King? The King explains:

Matt. 25:40 (NRSV): ... "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

The King then turns to the people on his left and says essentially the opposite of what he said to the people on his right; and they respond in much an opposite way:

Matt. 25:44 (NRSV): ... "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?"

As far as they are concerned, they lived to serve the King, and would have never refrained from doing anything for him. If they had seen the King hungry, they would have fed him. Had they seen him thirsty, they would have offered him water. Had they seen him naked, they would have given him clothes. Had they seen him sick, they would have comforted him. Had they known he was in prison, they would have visited him. They knew of the King. They believed in the King. They would have done anything for the King. But not good enough, so says the King, because he responds to them:

Matt. 25:45 (NRSV): ... "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."

And that's all we ever hear about them again as they are sent away to eternal punishment. Their faith in the King could not save them. Yet, the ones on the right are sent away to eternal life. They showed no faith whatsoever, but only did kindly to one another.

Thus Jesus has charged his followers to act; according to the Gospel of Matthew, the ministry of Jesus was a ministry of doing.

Why the Charge?

To understand why I believe there is a Charge laid, we need to go back to that first statement I made regarding my belief in GOD: "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen". Keeping this in mind, let's look at the following parable, told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 16:1–8 (NRSV): Then Jesus said to the disciples, 'There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him and said to him, "What is this that I hear about you? Give me an account of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer." Then the manager said to himself, "What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes." So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he asked the first, "How much do you owe my master?" He answered, "A hundred jugs of olive oil." He said to him, "Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty." Then he asked another, "And how much do you owe?" He replied, "A hundred containers of wheat." He said to him, "Take your bill and make it eighty." And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.

This parable is often—and correctly, I believe—understood to be teaching the moral that Jesus gives to it at the end in v. 9: "And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.". In other words, by giving away his master's goods the manager created friends for himself out of his master's clients so that after he lost his job at least one of them would remember him for his graciousness and take him in.

In addition to this, however, I feel that the parable teaches an even greater lesson: that any reservations we may have about giving are unfounded. Why? Because whatever there may be to give, none of it belongs to us anyway, but belongs to GOD, as SHE is the creator of all that is. Thus the manager acted wisely by giving away that which was not his—that which belonged to his master.

The older RSV translation uses the word 'steward' instead of 'manager' in translating that parable, and I think this is fitting with the parable's teachings concerning charity. For GOD is the MASTER of all, and only does GOD own anything; we are but stewards charged to do with our allotment according to ITS divine Will. And what is that Will? As the parable says: the MASTER commended the steward who gave away HIS property.

And so, because I believe that GOD is the OWNER of all, I do not see it as right to hoard what is GOD's, and keep it from others. This is a heavy Charge; a hard Load to bear! How sad was the rich man when told to give away everything he owned!

The other day, as I was on an errand, I saw a poor man begging on the side of the road. And as much as I was brought to pity, I could not pull myself from my own selfish course. And as I felt this, I pitied him more; and the more I pitied him, the more I recognized his sorrow; and the more I recognized his sorrow, the greater I felt shame that I was doing nothing. But no matter how much shame I felt, I could not pull myself from my own selfish course. And so then I pitied myself. And wept. Why had I failed? I failed because I felt pity for this man, and I should have had no pity for him. For I was the one to be pitied.

A Selfless Prayer

I do not believe that prayer is meant as a time to ask GOD for fulfillment of our own selfish desires. I believe prayer to be a time of self-reflection; a time of personal examination; a time not to request a promise from GOD but to make a promise to GOD and ourselves. The Charge is a hard one, and we all fail it at some time. When I am having difficulty rising up to the Charge, I find the following prayer helpful:

Lie down in bed one night and close your eyes. As you lie there with your eyes closed, think back through the week or the month or the year and try to remember every time you may have failed the Charge. Try to remember each beggar you passed up on the street, each stalled motorist you didn't stop to help, each single mother whose groceries you didn't assist her with loading into her car. Think of every time you saw an opportunity to do for others but did not.

Now, it is important that you think of these in detail. And you may want to whisper/talk out loud as you think of each instance, describing the situation, describing what you should have done, describing why you knew you should have done it, describing why you failed to do it. Think through each of these situations one-by-one. Recognize one-by-one each instance of your own personal failure and admit to it. Continue to think of instances until talking about them with yourself becomes enough to bring you to tears.

Then, ask GOD that HE might watch over and bless those who you have failed; ask GOD not for your own sake, but for the sake of those you did not help.

And finally, having put everyone else before you, ask GOD for the will, the power, the strength, and the determination to do a better job—even if just by a little bit—the next time you are faced with the Charge.

Conclusion

Having said all that, there's really only one more thing to add: It is all irrelevant. That we know right from wrong is all the reason needed for doing what is right and denouncing what is wrong.

SR
__________
¹ As will become clear, I do not believe GOD to have a gender; I may refer to GOD alternatively as HE, SHE, or IT (also rarely as THEY with a singular verb).