God's Foreknowledge & Free Will: A Controversial Debate - Essay Sample

Introduction

Foreknowledge is the ability to know the event that would happen in the future before they happen, as affirmed by many scholars, divine foreknowledge portrays God as an omniscient being, a God with the ability to know everything before human existence and those that are above human understanding (Craig, 2000). However, the foreknowledge ability of God had resulted into extreme contention as many scholars have argued that it adamantly deter free will and human freedom that God claims to have bestowed on human beings, which allows humans to make decisions without influence or determination of an external factor (Jensen, 2016). Despite the propositions from the western religious contexts such as the orthodox monotheists who advocate that God's foreknowledge is perfect in nature and undisputable, many theists actively contradict and objects the divine foreknowledge highlighting its major contradiction with human ability, free will and freedom (Rudavsky, 2013). Therefore, the research focuses explicitly on stating, explaining, and evaluating how the divine foreknowledge objection precluded by the eastern scholars to human freedom is convincing.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The religious context of foreknowledge and human freedom or free will often result in heretical perception (Jensen, 2016). The context actively has two extreme dimensions one premise advocating for perfect foreknowledge while the other advocating for human freedom and free will. For instance, Premise one states that "if any entity has a perfect knowledge of the future (foreknowledge), the human being lacks the freedom to act." Some entity (God) have perfect knowledge of the future, and the foreknowledge is adamantly undisputable. Therefore, due to the defining nature and ultimate attribute of its perfection, human consequently lacks freedom. Nevertheless, the second premise ascertains that if humans are indeed free, either the first premise is a fallacy claiming that God's foreknowledge is imperfect, or God does not really. Hence the two premises consequently result in extreme contradiction and contention.

Moreover, the religious phenomenon of foreknowledge has increasingly caused historical tension among scholars as it deliberately contradicts the exercise of human freedom and free will (Gordon, 2017). God, as a supreme being is not only characterized as the ultimate creator, omnipotent being and omnipresent being but also omniscient being with all knowledge and truth about all human existence and the world. Human free will or freedom involves the power or the ability to act without restriction (Jensen, 2016). It encompasses and individual's ability to chose a specific course of action from diverse options. Adamantly it is linked with the sense of responsibility, moral judgment, guilt, and praises. For example, an individual's decision to perform a specific action without being restricted by anyone or any external factor or supreme being. However, human freedom and free will result in a problem of contradicting the omniscient attribute of God (Rudavsky, 2013). Western culture has depicted God's knowledge as perfect and accurate; God's foreknowledge adequately controls human experiences and actions. As foreknowledge involve knowing what will happen without an alteration, God's knowledge seems to compel a man to act in a specific manner or conduct specific activities without his will (McDaniel, 2019). Philosophers such as Moses Maimonides argues that if God knows everything due to his omniscient abilities and knows that a certain individual will do bad or good, then such an individual is compelled to adhere to God's knowledge; hence hot practicing self-will or freedom since going contrary will render God's knowledge as imperfect (Gordon, 2017). The argument determined not only the good and evil of humanity but also every human action, whether small or significant. For instance, if God knows beforehand that James will mow his lawn of Friday, it necessarily follows that James is compelled to mow his lawn on Friday since God's foreknowledge cannot be imperfect. Therefore, the argument stipulates that God determines James actions and he has no free will or freedom to act as religious doctrines stipulate than God provided human beings with the free-will to choose right from wrong and follow the desires of their heart (Rudavsky, 2013).

Further, the religious philosophers and scholars proposed that God as an entity with perfect knowledge has to invoke properties and attributes that help in solving the contention, problems, and challenges that arise in the incompatibility between foreknowledge and human freedom. God is believed to exist outside of time in which human and other universal phenomena exist (Rudavsky, 2013). He is unable to have foreknowledge since His knowledge is timeless, it does not occur before, during or after human existence or any event, and cannot be subjected in the judgmental scale of time and space (De Florio & Frigerio, 2015). God's infallible abilities compel humans to act in a specific manner or conduct certain actions which deter them from perusing their free will. Moreover, since no human has control over the past, present or future, and no human has the infallible abilities but the supreme being, God, forcing humans to have known or foreseen outcomes. Nevertheless, advocating for human freedom and free will, the second premise would require a separate argument that denies the existence of supreme being, God, or portraying his foreknown acts as imperfect. Establishing the second premise would consequently adhere to Boethius' solution, which specifically argues that God is at the center of all things and is timeless since everything in the universe happens simultaneously.

Divine foreknowledge significantly opposes human freedom and free will. It is a valid argument that divine foreknowledge is massively undisputed and perfect; hence, humans are compelled to conduct specific actions to make certain decisions (McDaniel, 2019). Despite the religious context terming it heretical, advocating for human freedom at the expense of the contemporary omniscient attribute of God would extremely contradict the foreknowledge ability of God. Promoting balance between premise one and two such as encouraging divine foreknowledge and human freedom would continue promoting conflict and contention between religious theologians and secular philosopher. Hence, stating that humans are compelled to act and not free is significantly valid and rational (Jensen, 2016). God has an infallible belief which humans cannot change, and His belief system adamantly controls human actions and decisions since they cannot escape or alter it. For instance, James' plan to mow his lawn on Friday remains as it considerably aligns with God's infallible belief. God's foreknowledge consequently compels James to mow his lawn on Friday hence has no free will to act (De Florio & Frigerio, 2015). Therefore, it is a valid argument that divine foreknowledge actively contradicts and objects free will and human freedom since humans have no rights to act freely, but every action whether good or bad must align to God's divine foreknowledge (Gordon, 2017).

Coherently, opponents of divine foreknowledge believe that it is only a proposition God may suppose the future event that human undertakes but not a must they adhere to the proposition. For instance, Aristotelian solution precludes that since humans have free will, propositions about the future have no "truth value" hence do not affect the outcome of human decision. A notion that has been endorsed open theists (McDaniel, 2019). Nevertheless, it actively contradicts the unchangeable nature of God, foreknowledge, and being outside of time that makes him see and know all things. If God believes a phenomenon, then the phenomenon is true (De Florio & Frigerio, 2015). For instance, if God foreknew that an individual will sin, the sin will be committed out of necessity which controls human behaviors, decisions, and conducts because God already foreknew it. Due to inevitable necessity controlled by God's belief in a specific outcome, humans are compelled to act in certain ways. Therefore, humans lack free will and freedom to act independently (Gordon, 2017).

Conclusion

Conclusively, the research focused on providing a substantiated explanation, and evaluation of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. It focused on how convincing divine foreknowledge objects human freedom exploring diverse dimension promoted by different scholars. Irrespective of contrary arguments displayed throughout the research holding extreme ends of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, perceiving general fallacy in the religious context displayed the misconception about human freedom. Therefore, the research convincingly ascertained that the undisputed nature of divine foreknowledge, consequently objects and deters human freedom since God, a divine entity, already knows the future events which are beyond human perception.

References

Craig, W. L. (2000). The only wise God: The compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

De Florio, C., & Frigerio, A. (2015). In defense of the timeless solution to the problem of human free will and divine foreknowledge. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 78(1), 5-28. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-014-9471-4

Gordon, L. S. (2017). All is Foreseen, and Freedom of Choice is Granted: A Scotistic Examination of God's Freedom, Divine Foreknowledge and the Arbitrary Use of Power. Heythrop.

Jensen, A. S. (2016). Divine providence and human agency: Trinity, creation, and freedom. Routledge.

McDaniel, K. (2019). Freedom and idealism in Mary Whiton Calkins. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 27(3), 573-592. http://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2018.1509295

Rudavsky, T. (Ed.). (2013). Divine omniscience and omnipotence in medieval philosophy: Islamic, Jewish and Christian perspectives (Vol. 25). Springer Science & Business Media.