Or: An observation about God's omniscience that I really appreciate, now that I stopped taking it for granted.
---
"Part of the Prophet Joseph's moral and spiritual heroism is focused for me in his growing insight (and willingness to risk all, including his life, on that insight) that tragic paradox lies at the heart of things and that life and salvation, truth and progress, come only through anxiously, bravely grappling with those paradoxes, both in action and in thought."
The restored gospel focuses a great deal on "the agency of man," or our opportunity and responsibility for choosing, in ways that Biblical scripture doesn't. (I suspect that is in part because it was taken as granted that people are responsible for their own actions, but in our age, the question of agency appears to need to be spelled out.) Of particular note is 2 Nephi chapter 2, in which Lehi explains that agency necessarily requires the possibility of evil, suffering, and the like--or else we would have no way of knowing what goodness felt like (vv. 11-12.) No less cosmically important are the statements in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great price concerning agency, among which is repeated the idea that joy and goodness could only exist with an alternative available (D&C 29:39-40); that our agency is perhaps the central characteristic of our being (D&C 93:29-30); and that we exercised it before we ever came to this earth (D&C 29:36-37).
The theoretical conflict between the agency of man and God's omniscience is a topic that those who like to delve into mysteries typically like to wander about in. (Don't worry, I'm not going to... not today, anyway...*) While reading Elder Maxwell's book, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, I finally picked up on something important about all such theological questions: while we may have no idea as to the mechanism, we cannot doubt the effect, and that is that God is omniscient and we are wholly free to choose.
"Some find the doctrines of the omniscience and foreknowledge of God troubling," Elder Maxwell writes, "because these seem, in some way, to constrict their individual agency. This concern springs out of a failure to distinguish between how it is that God knows with perfection what is to come but that we do not know, thus letting a very clear and simple doctrine get obscured by our own finite view of things." [2007, p. 21]
In other words, just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work. In this case, as paradoxical as it might seem, God is all-knowing and we are endowed with true agency.
Paradoxes are often considered bad thinking, but when observation demands that two seemingly contradictory facts appear to be true, accepting paradox may be the only honest position.
For example, neither relativity nor quantum mechanics (nor even string theory**) has successfully described the source of the most everyday of occurrences--that which goes up must come down.
Physicists have done a good job about explaining light, electricity, the Strong Nuclear force, and the Weak Nuclear force. They've broken up protons, neutrons, and electrons into things named Whimsical Quarks (among many others.) Antimatter is real, and really does annihilate matter on contact in a burst of light. But we humans just can't figure out elementary principle causes gravity.
That doesn't mean we deny gravity exists, nor does it stop us from using it to our advantage--keeping satellites in orbit or simply taking a step. In the realm of physics, scientists don't just throw their hands up and shout, "Well! The whole thing's impossible! Gravity must be a figment of our imagination!" (Nor do they give up on trying to explain the paradoxical enmity between Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics!) They also don't tie themselves down to the nearest sturdy object, because even if they don't know how gravity works, they know that it does.
I think that is the essential point when pursuing the resolution of paradoxes. It might also be the definition of learning by study and also by faith: we must learn all we can, but then go and do--even if we only understand enough "to give place for a portion of [the gospel's] words," as Alma pleads in Alma 32. The promise is that we will know if Christ's doctrine is true by living it, not by understanding it's implications. Our personal observations, borne of experience, will carry us to the factual nature of Christ's gospel, even if we couldn't tell you why it works.
I don't know how God knows everything I'm going to do before I do it, nor do I understand how I can still have perfect agency afterwards. But I know from my own experience that God knows what will happen and will prepare me for it if I will listen; and that I am "free to choose liberty and eternal life . . . or to choose captivity and death," of which I've been alive long enough to do a little of both. I have to remember to not worry too much about the how at the expense of living, but of course I'll still try (futilely) to understand, just like physicists would love to see a graviton... aaaaany second now... wait for it... wait for it...
In the meantime, I hope to remember to always approach the question as Elder Maxwell suggests--by applying "the facts" to their full potential now and worrying about their full explanation later.
---
*But for those who are interested in such things, I hope you've already seen the interesting conversation going on at Times and Seasons on the subject, particularly between joespencer and Adam Miller. I also hope you can illuminate me on other ways to approach the seeming paradox! In particular, Elder Maxwell seems to endorse the "out of time" position, i.e. that God sees all things all at once, and couples it with the "observation does not equal causation" position, i.e. that although God knows all things, the fact that we don't allows us agency anyway. Thus, the veil preserves our agency, although this of course gets complicated when we start thinking about God's agency. But by now I'm in way over my poorly-read-in-theology-and-philosophy head.
**UPDATE: All right, I got my science mixed up down here! Thanks to Joey for helping me straighten this out. Briefly, relativity and quantum mechanics attempt to describe gravity, but certainly not as concretely as they have described the other three forces. String theory attempts to describe it, too, but in ways that go way over my right-brained head and likewise haven't been rendered provable by current techniques. Quantum physicists have a good idea of what <i>should</i> cause gravity as part of the Standard Model--the theoretical Higgs boson, which would give mass to other particles--but have been unable to observe it as yet. (Observing this particular elementary particle was one of the purposes of the Hadron collider's construction.) For the purposes of this post, I'll have to limit my metaphor by saying, "Well, science still doesn't really <i>know</i> that the Higgs boson even exists or truly causes gravity," and go on to point out that just because we're not certain what exactly causes the force, we can still confidently take advantage of its effects. But remember, it's just a metaphor. Right then, on we go!
---
"Part of the Prophet Joseph's moral and spiritual heroism is focused for me in his growing insight (and willingness to risk all, including his life, on that insight) that tragic paradox lies at the heart of things and that life and salvation, truth and progress, come only through anxiously, bravely grappling with those paradoxes, both in action and in thought."
-Eugene England, author's foreword to Dialogues with Myself
---The restored gospel focuses a great deal on "the agency of man," or our opportunity and responsibility for choosing, in ways that Biblical scripture doesn't. (I suspect that is in part because it was taken as granted that people are responsible for their own actions, but in our age, the question of agency appears to need to be spelled out.) Of particular note is 2 Nephi chapter 2, in which Lehi explains that agency necessarily requires the possibility of evil, suffering, and the like--or else we would have no way of knowing what goodness felt like (vv. 11-12.) No less cosmically important are the statements in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great price concerning agency, among which is repeated the idea that joy and goodness could only exist with an alternative available (D&C 29:39-40); that our agency is perhaps the central characteristic of our being (D&C 93:29-30); and that we exercised it before we ever came to this earth (D&C 29:36-37).
The theoretical conflict between the agency of man and God's omniscience is a topic that those who like to delve into mysteries typically like to wander about in. (Don't worry, I'm not going to... not today, anyway...*) While reading Elder Maxwell's book, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, I finally picked up on something important about all such theological questions: while we may have no idea as to the mechanism, we cannot doubt the effect, and that is that God is omniscient and we are wholly free to choose.
"Some find the doctrines of the omniscience and foreknowledge of God troubling," Elder Maxwell writes, "because these seem, in some way, to constrict their individual agency. This concern springs out of a failure to distinguish between how it is that God knows with perfection what is to come but that we do not know, thus letting a very clear and simple doctrine get obscured by our own finite view of things." [2007, p. 21]
In other words, just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean it doesn't work. In this case, as paradoxical as it might seem, God is all-knowing and we are endowed with true agency.
Paradoxes are often considered bad thinking, but when observation demands that two seemingly contradictory facts appear to be true, accepting paradox may be the only honest position.
For example, neither relativity nor quantum mechanics (nor even string theory**) has successfully described the source of the most everyday of occurrences--that which goes up must come down.
Physicists have done a good job about explaining light, electricity, the Strong Nuclear force, and the Weak Nuclear force. They've broken up protons, neutrons, and electrons into things named Whimsical Quarks (among many others.) Antimatter is real, and really does annihilate matter on contact in a burst of light. But we humans just can't figure out elementary principle causes gravity.
That doesn't mean we deny gravity exists, nor does it stop us from using it to our advantage--keeping satellites in orbit or simply taking a step. In the realm of physics, scientists don't just throw their hands up and shout, "Well! The whole thing's impossible! Gravity must be a figment of our imagination!" (Nor do they give up on trying to explain the paradoxical enmity between Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics!) They also don't tie themselves down to the nearest sturdy object, because even if they don't know how gravity works, they know that it does.
I think that is the essential point when pursuing the resolution of paradoxes. It might also be the definition of learning by study and also by faith: we must learn all we can, but then go and do--even if we only understand enough "to give place for a portion of [the gospel's] words," as Alma pleads in Alma 32. The promise is that we will know if Christ's doctrine is true by living it, not by understanding it's implications. Our personal observations, borne of experience, will carry us to the factual nature of Christ's gospel, even if we couldn't tell you why it works.
I don't know how God knows everything I'm going to do before I do it, nor do I understand how I can still have perfect agency afterwards. But I know from my own experience that God knows what will happen and will prepare me for it if I will listen; and that I am "free to choose liberty and eternal life . . . or to choose captivity and death," of which I've been alive long enough to do a little of both. I have to remember to not worry too much about the how at the expense of living, but of course I'll still try (futilely) to understand, just like physicists would love to see a graviton... aaaaany second now... wait for it... wait for it...
In the meantime, I hope to remember to always approach the question as Elder Maxwell suggests--by applying "the facts" to their full potential now and worrying about their full explanation later.
---
*But for those who are interested in such things, I hope you've already seen the interesting conversation going on at Times and Seasons on the subject, particularly between joespencer and Adam Miller. I also hope you can illuminate me on other ways to approach the seeming paradox! In particular, Elder Maxwell seems to endorse the "out of time" position, i.e. that God sees all things all at once, and couples it with the "observation does not equal causation" position, i.e. that although God knows all things, the fact that we don't allows us agency anyway. Thus, the veil preserves our agency, although this of course gets complicated when we start thinking about God's agency. But by now I'm in way over my poorly-read-in-theology-and-philosophy head.
**UPDATE: All right, I got my science mixed up down here! Thanks to Joey for helping me straighten this out. Briefly, relativity and quantum mechanics attempt to describe gravity, but certainly not as concretely as they have described the other three forces. String theory attempts to describe it, too, but in ways that go way over my right-brained head and likewise haven't been rendered provable by current techniques. Quantum physicists have a good idea of what <i>should</i> cause gravity as part of the Standard Model--the theoretical Higgs boson, which would give mass to other particles--but have been unable to observe it as yet. (Observing this particular elementary particle was one of the purposes of the Hadron collider's construction.) For the purposes of this post, I'll have to limit my metaphor by saying, "Well, science still doesn't really <i>know</i> that the Higgs boson even exists or truly causes gravity," and go on to point out that just because we're not certain what exactly causes the force, we can still confidently take advantage of its effects. But remember, it's just a metaphor. Right then, on we go!
Jesse, I'll preface this with, "I didn't read your whole post," but I want to quickly address your statement: "I don't know how God knows everything I'm going to do before I do it, nor do I understand how I can still have perfect agency afterwards." Landes Taylor once told me a quote (by William James, I think) which asked in effect, "Which analogy represents the more noble view of God's omniscience? The Russian [I thought you'd like that!] Grandmaster who understands the game of chess so well that he knows what you will probably do and exactly how to counter it, or the super computer which exhaustively searches all possibilities?" (Forgive the anachronism--of course James didn't envision Deep Blue.... I don't know the exact quotation!) In some sense, I believe the Russian Grandmaster is more enviable. Just a thought.... (By the way, computers are nowhere near being able to exhaustively search through all possible moves, and I suspect it will never happen in our lifetime.)
ReplyDeleteRight, and if a supercomputer can't even do it, what does that mean about God? So even if he doesn't know the future like I know the past (Elder Maxwell is adamant on this point--that omniscience means knowing, but I'm more flexible) the kind of comprehension it suggests is staggering. He knows all the moves of everything!
DeleteThis explanation seems to me to have the advantage of incorporating time, defined as "cause and effect," something Elder Maxwell's explanation seems to lack (if God exists in an "eternal now," decisions and action are difficult to conceptualize.) It seems to have the weakness of "but what if God got it wrong?" which must be taken as an impossibility, just as Elder Maxwell's argument outlaws it.
I think it interesting that James thought of a Russian Grandmaster as the archetypal planner and plotter. Why Russian? Does it add a layer of cunning, power, and unknowable mystery to compare God to your geopolitical foe? Very interesting...
Great entry. I’m a frequenter of reddit.com, and anyone else who frequents the site also knows that atheism is a popular topic. People often post comics or screen captures of them making theists look stupid with arguments intended to disprove the existence of God. One of the most common arguments is the “God wouldn’t allow so much evil.” Of course, the average internet surfer isn’t going to be versed in even the most common philosophical and theological arguments. I think many in the LDS community would agree with what’s called the “Plantinga’s free will defense,” which says "It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures." If you respond by saying something along these lines, you get responses from the determinists saying free will is illusory. It’s hard to imagine what it would be like to actually be a hard determinist, and to actually believe that everything you do is done with your choice. I think very few people actually fully believe it. It’s kind of like Hume’s arguments against causal relationships. Hume showed that we can’t logically causally connect two events, saying if x happens, then z will happen. Nevertheless, causal relation assumptions are required to function day to day. So it is that I think the hard determinists practice free will. That’s just my opinion though.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be annoying and pick at a few of the science related things you mentioned. Technically speaking, the standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of the higgs boson, which describes the source of gravitational force. Your ** notes at the bottom of your entry are a bit unclear and it sounds like your first two sentences (one article regarding the higgs boson, and the other article regarding the neutrino errors) are related. Those articles aren't related and scientists still very much expect to discover the higgs boson. "it is the only elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not yet been observed in particle physics experiments"
First, I deeply appreciate being helped out of my amateur comprehension of particle physics--in fact, I think I literally asked for it! I'll be attempting some observations about science generally on this blog in the future, so I want to get it out there early that I would much rather be shown the actual science, even if it breaks down my argument, than to be wrong on it. So thanks, and I'll edit my comment to better reflect my original intent!
DeleteI hope I didn't imply (in the main body) that I didn't think we'd find the Higgs boson eventually--just that if it exists like we think it does, we haven't seen it yet. I think my metaphor continues to stand on the grounds that the hypothetical but unproven is not a sure "rational" foundation. Certainly I also expect one day to understand God's ability to maintain omniscience and my pure agency at the same time. Unlike scientists, however, I don't really expect to "get it" with my limited mortal experience. (Which is not to say that I don't want them to "get it"--we're reaching the edge of effective metaphor here, and I digress...)
Also, thanks for the analysis on Plantinga's defense, which I am familiar with but have never done an exhaustive study of. I have also heard some spirited attacks on the defense, but never one that seems to rationally cripple the argument. As for Hume, causal relationships, and determinism, I think you hit the nail on the head. The best determinist I can think of would say, "Of course I can't act like everything is predetermined--it's my destiny to assume free will!" which of course makes it a pointless argument (in my view), since even if it were true, we can't act as if it were true. But more on determinism later, if I can get to it without tripping up on the millenia of literature on the subject... :)
Great post Jesse! I read the whole thing, but I have to admit that I was kind of distracted by one of your opening sentences, speaking about agency:
ReplyDelete"I suspect that is in part because it was taken as granted that people are responsible for their own actions, but in our age, the question of agency appears to need to be spelled out."
I've often thought about this very contradiction that you allude to. In scriptural times, prophets and believers in general seemed to have no trouble reconciling God-given agency with dictatorial government; but, in our times, we hear a near-constant buzz of worry from members of the Church, fretting that each expansion of government power and size causes an equal decrease in personal agency.
I started discussing this apparent contradiction with a friend of mine on campus, and we came to the conclusion that in our times the two ideas of personal agency and personal liberty have largely been conflated to mean the same thing; however, a quick, logical analysis will show that the agency and liberty cannot be the same thing.
If personal agency and personal liberty were synonymous, the general populous living under a dictatorship where all personal liberties were denied, would--in effect--have no personal agency. The populous would literally not be responsible for their actions. The idea is pretty silly. A quick review of the scriptures and our own consciences will tell us that regardless of what government we find ourselves living under, the Lord expects to obey His commandments and live a moral life. Agency is never "nullified", even when personal liberties are.
So . . . after having said way too much, I think the difference between the ancients' concept of agency, and our own modern concept, is that we "latter-day" saints struggle with separating agency from liberty.
Thoughts?
P.S. I should probably just make it clear that I think that personal liberties are VERY important, and a society that secures those liberties is pleasing to Heavenly Father. I just don't think He sees agency and liberty as the same thing.
That, my friend, is a very subtle and insightful distinction that requires some pause. Even if I have no effective choice--to borrow from the argumentation at the Supreme Court this week, if I'm threatened with "Your money or your life"--I still have the agency to choose my life, although I'm not really at liberty to make a "real" choice.
DeleteWhen your liberty is limited, you only have bad choices, and you may have to choose whether to live or die. Daniel wasn't at liberty to pursue happiness (in this case, worshiping the Lord God) in Babylon, but he could still choose the lion's den--agency but not liberty. When your agency is limited, on the other hand, you literally don't have a choice--my agency is limited by the passage of time, for example, disallowing me to change the past or to predetermine the future.
Are there better examples of this?