Something Aquinas said caught my attention. It’s from Erickson’s book on open theism. Good quote. I should look it up later.
Lovely… it’s outstanding when the determinist is unable to conceive of their own ability to act
1 Like
Little boxes? Everyone neatly catagorised?
I am not a determinist
But to state that something is uncaused is to claim that there is no explanation for its existence. How can you claim this just because the cause is not identified?
In general my actions are of my own free will. There may be forces that limit or adjust those actions but usually I am aware of those forces and can take them into account. determinism would seem to suggest that I have no control of my actions but am dictated by those forces.
In terms of God, I do not see Him presurising me to make any decision or action.
In respect of so called “Uncaused” actions I would suggest that there is indeed a cause but it has yet to be identified. That does not imply that the force(s) in question have intelligence or are divine. It just states that we do not know everything but to assume that we do is vanity.
Richard
Do you mean “foreknown by God”?
Philosophers/theologians I’ve read (both secular and Christian) dispute the logic that an omniscient, omnipotent being can decide to create a universe (ex nihilo) in which all facts are settled “determined”, and yet have free-will actors influencing outcomes in that world.
Some philosophers do indeed try to argue that foreknowledge and determinism are compatible, but I haven’t found their rationale convincing to date.
I didn’t think you were a determinist, but they do exist. There’s a lot in your comment. Going back to what I said, an uncaused cause does not occur, and a person who causes an action does not occur with respect to the action they cause.
A person may be contingent in being, while being uncontingent with respect to the action they cause.
Compatibalism seems like a fair article of faith
The trick is understanding that you as an individual can genuinely affect the future
1 Like
Sure, one may accept “compatibalism” by faith and apparently many do so. But then, see my earlier comment to Knor
1 Like
In my experience, I have found a similar conceptual problem in God’s response to my prayer with respect to the free actions of others. How God can do that is a great mystery.
Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.
1 Like
Being aware of consequences or not does not affect the causality. Chance is not a cause it is an expression of intent. or lack of. Even if the combination of actions is not predictable it does not make it uncaused. .IOW the precise cause may not be seen but that does not mean it was uncaused. All it means is that the precise cause is unknown. Given enough time, and knowledge i am confident that anything can be shown to have been caused, one wat or the other.
Richard
In those instances I cause something?
I fail to see your logic. Why should anyone or anything be responsible? Cause and responsibility are not synonyms.It is the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Richard
Thanks for the long reply. I think we both agree that true free will must operate in the world, the question is how is that achieved? And it is the second part of the sentence that many philosophers dispute is logically possible under classic theism.
I think you are correct, that there are several “flavours” of Open Theism floating around out there, but haven’t done an intensive search to identify each one. However, a “partially open” future does not just mean an agent can freely choose between alternatives, although it does include that fact. The term means that some future facts are indeed settled (either God has determined some facts by the nature of how he created the world, by knowing how he himself will act in the future, or by the effect of past events on what is possible to happen in the future).
And, according to the analogy of the Chess player, God knows every possible trajectory that the “game” could take, based on how he originally created the game’s rules and starting conditions. He knows the future perfectly…but as a set of possibilities rather than completely settled. But because of his infinite intelligence and capacity, holding all these possibilities in mind is no more challenging for him than if there was only 1 settled trajectory of things. So, he is never caught unprepared and has (for all eternity) known how he would react if this particular scenario played out and can react optimally to it in order to achieve his final purposes “winning the game” and bringing his creation to fruition.
Thus, in my mind, Open Theism makes best sense of the real effectiveness of one’s prayers to truly influence what God allows himself to do in the world. Scripture seems to suggest that God often wants to work relationally with his image-bearers, as opposed to unilaterally with pre-determined dictatorial force. He seems to get pleasure from the partnership with us, as we pray, waiting for us to align with Him voluntarily before he will chose to intervene with his power.
1 Like
If I cause an action, are you asking if anyone or anything is responsible?
@Vinnie this is the quote from Erickson
Thomas had contended that God knew future contingents because he was eternally present to them and they to him. He further held that God did not know these directly or by intuition but by seeing likenesses to them in his own essence. He even knows those things that will never exist because he can see in his own essence the power to make them.
1 Like
No, I am suggesting that there does not have to be responsibility because that involves intent, which in turn involves premeditation or calculation, which again requires intelligence. A circumstance can be the result of a random convergence or unrelated actions or circumstances without the involvement of intent or intellect. It still has cause, but that cause may not be easily seen or understood…
In terms of law. life becomes more complicated because it revolves around intent rather than precise cause. The result may not be expected but there may still have been criminal intent Even if the final result was not the intention, there is culpability in the behavior that caused the actual result. IOW if the person had not started on a course of action then the result could not have happened, the law then has to decide whether the perpetrator could have forseen the outcome anyway.
I guess that is why legalism is not part of theology, but it distinguuishes between cause and intent to ascertain responsibility. The Law being more concerned with responsibility than just establishing the cause…
I think this has got overcomplicated
Richard
This is probably unquestionable with unconscious actions, or in split personality types.
I am simply considering what it is when a person (consciously) acts. I think you are overcomplicating it.
As I like to tell my determinist friends, all it takes is a single action by a single person for determinism to be false.
But it is not that simple because that act is framed within circumstance and any simultaneous acts be they deliberate or a result of due process. The result can be unexpected and/or unpredictable, but there is still a definable cause .It is not uncaused.
Richard
1 Like
You as the person would be the first cause or uncaused cause of the action
1 Like
I am sorry but uncaused would appear to be an oxymoron. It cannot exist. Every event has a route cause. Whether is is identifiable is another matter. Even spontanious combustion has a route cause.
Richard