We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Why do you claim that everybody, whether they know it or not, believes that the future is partly open?
Whatever a person may theoretically believe, they act like the future is partly open. For, as a matter of fact, there’s no other way to act.
Think about it. Every time we deliberate between options on the way toward making a decision, we assume (and we have to assume) that a) the future consists of possibilities and b) that it is up to us to resolve these possibilities into one actuality (that is, our concrete decision). It’s simply impossible to deliberate in a way that manifests a different set of beliefs.
Go ahead and try it. Right now, think about a matter you need to resolve with a decision. Consider your possibilities and weigh your options. Now, try to do this without presupposing that these possibilities are genuinely real and genuinely up to you to resolve. You may consciously believe that the fact of what you’re going to decide has been “out there” for an eternity in the mind of God, but you can’t act on this belief as you deliberate. In fact, you act against this belief in your very act of deliberation.
What makes this interesting is that it’s something of a truism that we reflect our true convictions more by how we act than by what we say or even think (for our conscious minds are frequently deceived). If I truly believe my car is rigged to explode when I start it, for example, and if I truly believe life is worth living, then I will not get into my car and start it. If I profess these two beliefs and yet get into my car and start it, you’ll know that I’m either insincere or self-deceived in professing one or both of these beliefs. Our truest convictions are manifested not by what we say or even think, but by how we act.
From this it would seem to follow that everyone – including those who adamantly deny it – really believes the future is partly open. Just watch how they deliberate.
Here’s the irony. In the very act of deliberating about whether to embrace or reject the open view of the future, people presuppose the open view of the future is true.
The only remaining question, then, is whether they’ll get their theoretical beliefs about the nature of the future to line up with their core conviction about the nature of the future. .
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Free Will and the Future
Related Reading
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?
“…the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.” (see 1 Sam. 15:12). Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge. It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the…
Why Does God Need Prayer?
Greg Loves Questions. In his best selling book Letters from a Skeptic, he responds to questions from his father, who was then an atheist. Tomorrow Greg will be hosting a AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit. We hope you can join us! Here is an adaptation of one of Greg’s responses to a question from…
Living Into the Future
Why didn’t God create a “perfect world”? Here’s Greg’s response to that question. See more at The Work of the People.
The Open View of Messianic Prophesies
Image by Lawrence OP via Flickr A number of passages speak of particular events being foreknown by God, even events resulting from individuals’ free will. For example, dozens of prophesies in the OT accurately predict details about the coming Messiah (e.g., he would be born in Bethlehem; arise out of the lineage of Abraham; be executed with…
If God is already doing the most he can do, how does prayer increase his influence?
Question: If God always does the most that he can in every tragic situation, as you claim in Satan and the Problem of Evil, how can you believe that prayer increases his influence, as you also claim? It seems if you grant that prayer increases God’s influence, you have to deny God was previously doing…
Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?
Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…