« Ah, Music to the Ears | Main | Something Shlocky This Way Comes »

September 20, 2003

It's Like Now, But Not Now, You Know?

It's been a while since there's been a good theological free-for-all here, so I'm linking to this ongoing discussion regarding the futility of intercessionary prayer. My contribution follows, quoting from a response to the Raving Atheist given by Catholic blogger Michelle Enjoy.

I would need about four long posts to fully respond to every point RA made. That would qualify me for a Godidiot of the Month award from RA, so let's keep it short and pick out only a few points to remark on:

And here I thought that to be persecuted for your belief, even on a blog, is admirable in the eyes of the Christian god. Tsk tsk. Sure, it's not quite up there with getting nailed to a cross, but it's bound to count for something, right?

An "infinite number [of] years" is an oxymoron, RA. Eternity isn't an unending chain of years; it's entirely outside time. Because we are material beings with spiritual souls, we exist within time because material changes, evolves. But such change or evolution is a limitation and there can be no limitations on a perfect Being. So time doesn't exist in eternity; eternity is like an ever-present Now with no past or future. Therefore God isn't pondering our fate for billions and billions of years; he knows it Now.

Sadly, according to Merriam-Webster, eternity is "infinite time" - and since a year is a unit of measure for time, Raving Atheist is quite right to say that it's an "infinite number [of] years." Making up your own definition to explain away the flaws in your theology isn't terribly honest or, for that matter, convincing.

Further, how does a spiritual soul exist in a material world? How does it interact with and drive the bag of skin we call our body? This is the primary problem with the entire concept of the supernatural - once it affects the natural world, it's obviously part of it.

Which leads to the problem of your made-up definition of "eternity" - you've just described something you can't possibly understand using nonsensical phrases like "it's entirely outside of time" combined with the directly contraditory "ever-present Now" (note that in your description of something that is outside of time, you used words that are about, well, time - sorry, doesn't fly). Perhaps, though, that's the only way you have to describe this concept, which means even you don't understand it - so why are you so sure of it?

Ah, because your theology won't make sense without it. Clever.

The interaction between free will and omniscience is indeed a difficult theological conundrum, but the two are not mutually exclusive. If omniscience is indeed All-Knowing, it could certainly Know how to budget for its own gift of free will to its creatures.

In other words, you don't have any clue how to reconcile them, but you're sure that your god does, and that's good enough for you. So much for intellectual rigor and the application of reason to the world around us!

I see little point in going into her (cough) analysis (cough) of how free will is like that movie where Kate Winslet gets naked on a boat. Quite simply, the question is: Can you do something that God does not know you will do before you do it? If the answer is no, then free will is but an illusion. If the answer is yes, then your god is not omniscient.

Update: Couple of things for you good people:

• Dustbury gives his thoughts on the matter. As I said in the comments, I don't think his position alters the incompatibility of free will and omniscience. Go take a peek for yourself.

• One other thing I failed to mention, but which I remembered this morning. If God is omniscient, and thus knows everything, would we include knowledge of his own actions in the set of "everything to be known?" If so, this means God would know all of his own actions and could never actually choose to do anything of his own accord - it virtually creates an infinite regression of deities just like the first cause argument. Whoops.