Philosophy of Religion: Gods Omniscience

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Explain how Gods omniscience appears to rule out human free will. Next, explain how Augustine and Gersonides handle this problem. Who do you think is more right, and why?

Within religious idealism, the belief the God is omniscient. The belief is that God is a being, who is not only the creator of everything in existence and is the central source of wisdom, love, and divine intervention in the universe. In the realm of philosophy, omniscience refers to essentially having the knowledge of all the true intentions of the universe and knowing which intentions do not hold true. The essential idea behind this concept can be explained by considering the terms which are used to describe individuals in the first person. If an individual expresses I am in pain, in this case, the only manner in which omniscience can exist is if another individual understands how the person sees his pain, not simply how he sees it himself.

The question of course then becomes can free will exist in humans in the presence of Gods omniscience. Before we begin trying to understand how the two concepts may be compatible or incompatible, it is first important to consider how human beings see the future. For human beings knowledge of the future is a problematic concept since our perception of the reality around us is entirely dependent on our current environment. We cannot know the future because the future as an environment cannot be perceived by individuals. Thus, our reasoning regarding the future is entirely dependent on our perception of the present. Thus, if we consider that God knows all the actions of human beings in the present and in the future, then it follows that God will know every action an individual takes. But then the question becomes if an individual has free will, does that mean that individuals can avoid committing to the same actions they are expected to do. Or perhaps if it is foretold that a person will do a particular act, does that mean that an individual does not have the will to choose to desist from committing the act (Cahn).

The question then becomes if God has foreknowledge of human actions, and human beings have foreknowledge of their actions, then does that mean that this knowledge gives human beings the ability to change such an action. There have been various philosophers who have attempted to tackle this question, to answer if there is compatibility between free will and determinism. One method which philosophers use to provide proof that God is omniscient is by saying that there are no facts that can accurately allow an individual to say what will happen in the future. Prior to someone exercising his or her free will, there is no way for any person to know what will happen. It might be said that this in fact acts against the omniscience of God. However, as the earlier point mentioned God cannot know the objective of free will before free will has been exercised no more than he can make square circles. There are of course yet other schools of thought who contend that free will is compatible with libertarian freedom. That God can know the objective of free will before free will has been exercised. These philosophers say that within the spectrum of God, the concept of time does not exist as it does for human beings or that Gods viewpoint of human beings is such that it does not impinge upon our consideration of free will. There is also a contention which is commonly known as middle knowledge. In this theory, God can contend to know all possible futures which may occur and any number of events that lead to it. Thus, this form of knowledge allows God to know the outcome of every decision an individual makes thus knowing what events will occur and what may occur (Cahn).

One of the individuals who offer a theory to tackle this problem is French philosopher Levi ben Gershon also more commonly known as Gersonides. He was a mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer from the the12th century. Despite being Jewish the philosopher did not hold the same views as other Jewish theologists. He said that God does not have complete foreknowledge of human events and actions. He is one of the individuals who provided the theory of middle knowledge. That God does not know what an individual will decide, however, he knows all the outcomes of every decision an individual might make. In many ways, his theories reconcile with those of Aristotle who said that God does not know the minute details of individual human beings. Gersonides believed that God despite his omniscience did not have foreknowledge of which choice human beings would make. He also speculated on prophets of God and answered a question regarding their knowledge of future events. He answered that though the prophets had knowledge of the future the knowledge provided to them was generalized and the prophets themselves perceived how this knowledge could be attributed to current events and situations. When speaking of fate he says that it is also bestowed upon individuals depending on the groups or species they currently inhabit rather than individualizing their fates. An example of this would be that philosophical men would have the same fate as other philosophers (Cahn).

The respect in which God knows contingents is the respect in which they are ordered that is, God knows their essences. (Rudavsky 165)

Another Christian philosopher and theologian who offered his views on Gods omniscience was Augustine in the 3^rd century. Being a man of the church, Augustine did not provide any writings which argued that existence of God. However, within his writings he did recognize that mans as a creation was inferior in that he did not realize the eternal truth. Awareness of an absolute and perfect being comes from the realization of this eternal truth; with the beauty of his creation pointing to the validity of his existence.

Within his writings Augustine says that the creation of human beings is a predetermined process. That the only way for human being to be free was to accept Gods love and ask for his blessings. The main way in which Augustine discusses the omniscience of God is by exploring the concept of evil. He speaks of the world having being created by God as being fundamentally good. Human beings which are also a creation of God also enjoy the status of having free will but choose to commit evil acts. This is where the concept of free will is introduced. All human beings have free will to choose between good and evil, however, human beings intentionally choose evil causing sin and misery (Cahn).

Augustine takes the example of the creation of the Earth to show how free will creates misery. He speaks of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. How their pride resulted in their inclination towards evil, instead of choosing humility and being good. So the question is asked how God would allow creatures who are fundamentally good such as man to turn to evil. Augustine says that evil is not the product of God; rather it is the product of the earth. According to him mans soul was created from the earth and it is due to this creation that it has an imperfection which allows it an inclination towards evil. Within acts of evil there is no God and by following anything other than God man can only be evil (Cahn).

If man must sin, his sin is not the result of the wills choice, but is instead a fixed and inevitable necessity (Augustine, Benjamin and Hackett 90).

All this of course plays into the question of free will. If God has foreknowledge of free will then how does man have choice over his actions? Free will by definition implies that God cannot choose our fate for us since we are meant to make that decision. Augustine solves this problem by saying that God does not influence our decisions rather he understands the motive behind our decisions. In this way God does not make our decisions for us, rather he allows us to make decisions ourselves while knowing our reasoning behind it. It is through this that Gods omnipotence and omniscience does not contradict the existence of evil in this world. Free will by definition speaks of the ability to make a decision. However, God though having the ultimate free will does not have the inclination to make a decision. Thus, by allowing man to make his own decisions and knowing the motives behind them God allows him to choose misery or God. In this way God does not contradict the existence of evil or the choice of man in this world (Cahn).

In my opinion Gersonides opinion holds truer than that of Augustine. This is because Gersonides, unlike Augustine before questioning Gods omniscience questions his existence. Augustine opinion though interesting seems particularly biased towards planting God as an infallible being and humanity as being flawed. He does not truly answer whether men have free will, nor does he provide adequate reasoning for it. Much of what he discusses is based upon the catholic faith in which he was brought up. Gersonides however, despite his religious upbringing offers a theory which seems well thought out and does not purport to be more than it is. Gersonides himself admits his failings if he cannot contend with an aspect of the question and yet forges ahead providing his perspective on what he does know.

Works Cited

Augustine, Anna Benjamin and L. H. Hackett. De libero arbitrio, bk III. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. 90

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring philosophy of religion: an introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Rudavsky, Tamar. Divine omniscience and omnipotence in medieval philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian perspectives p. 165. New York: Springer, 1985. 165

Click Here To Order Now!

Philosophy of Religion: Gods Omniscience

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)