Jumping Ships from Open Theism to Compatibilism

Over the last several years I’ve had a lot of great discussions with Open Theists.

Open Theism — perhaps more properly called open futurism — is the idea that what we imagine as plausible future possibilities are all realizable (and not simply imaginary).

For them all to be realizable, it is asserted, God cannot have certain knowledge of a single future course.

There are 3 big reasons why folks might be interested in this sort of thing:

  • It would let us take Scripture at face value — rather than anthropomorphically and/or hyperbolically — when it talks about God changing his mind on appeal or having regrets. Rather we’d be able to say, “He genuinely didn’t know what future would be realized and reacted upon that future becoming realized.”
  • It relieves us of the existential gravity of being causal creatures. We can more easily imagine ourselves as spontaneous originators and “co-writers of history.” We can flee from the nihilism of reductive analysis; before, we were called to box an existential heavyweight, but now we don’t even have to get in the ring.
  • If we (humans and angels and demons and whatever-you-please) are “co-writers of history,” we can selectively apply folk responsibility to guarantee the “cleanliness of God’s hands.” In other words, it seems to really help with theodicy. We can always find something other than God to take 100% responsibility for the “bad stuff” (Heb. raah).

Sounds pretty good, right?

The bad news is that all 3 of these have major snags (and we’ll get into the specifics in just a moment).

First, let’s talk about what you’d expect if it’s true that these have major snags.

If these contributions are deeply problematic (as opposed to surface-only problems with ready solutions) — like a leaky wooden ship set-sail — you’d expect:

  • Radically novel conjecture (not just refinement or development) in order to “jury-rig.”
  • Selective appeals to solutions pioneered by competing hypotheses in order to “patch.”
  • Logical wildcards to keep the ship’s captain blissfully oblivious to the problems below; to “obfuscate.”

Open Theology is under development, and as such, different Open writers and thinkers have different ideas and approaches. Even so, I’m noticing those “you’d expect” patterns more and more.

This is especially of interest to me as a Christian compatibilist.

Why?

Because compatibilist solutions are very often being procured from the compatibilist “vessel” for at-sea patching! “Hey, that’s ours!”

Compatibilism is the idea that while creatures make decisions as strict functions of who they are and what makes them tick, we still make real choices, can be held responsible, and have free will. The angle is that these “agency things” dwell on a layer of meaningfulness that emerges from discriminatory interests (including interests of God).

It doesn’t seem like it at first, but compatibilism isn’t a big jump from Open Theism.

This is evinced by the fact that our vessels are neighborly enough for “trading”!

Of course, the hope is that Open brethren will eventually jump ship and board the U. S. S. Compatibilism, which is an amazing ship, and which would love a bigger crew to battle (in a friendly way) common theological foes.

Let’s tackle the snags within each of the above 3 contributions.

… In reverse order!

Contribution 1

If we (humans and angels and demons and whatever you please) are “co-writers of history,” we can selectively apply folk responsibility to guarantee the “cleanliness of God’s hands.” In other words, it seems to really help with theodicy. We can always find something other than God to take 100% responsibility for the “bad stuff” (Heb. raah).

Problem 1.1: The Incoherence of Folk Responsibility

Notice “selectively apply folk responsibility.” That “selectively” is important: Folk responsibility is a logical wildcard.

Logical wildcards are hard to directly address because their power is in their ghostly incoherence, vagueness, and inconsistency.

There are two ways to battle these ghosts:

  • Demand definition. (This is rhetorically weak because the ghosts will just fly away.)
  • Show how the ghosts are yielding logical contradictions and/or algorithmic inconsistencies. (This is more rhetorically effective.)

The latter takes place in the following article: “Holding ‘Folk Responsibility’ Responsible.” There, you’ll see definitively how folk responsibility is leveraged inconsistently to “clean God’s hands.”

Problem 1.2: The Triviality & “Raah” of Deterministic Processes

This applies only to the subset of Open Theists who admit that some processes are indeed deterministic (or, would be unless effected by a “libertarian free agent”).

One such process might be the molding of costal cliffs. After millennia of water against rock, each coastal cliff is indescribably unique. So, did God micromanage each cliff face around the world?

A common, and (I think) proper, answer is, “No. There’s a difference between the micromanaged results of deterministic processes and the corollaries thereof. The former has teleology; the latter is just ‘byproduct.'”

Sweet! That’s a patch borrowed from compatibilism. And it works pretty well with coastal cliffs.

But what about tsunamis against cities? Or Pompeii?

At this fork in the road, the subset might jury-rig with radical novelty. For example, one could posit that libertarian-free demons are driving every natural disaster and accident.

Or rather, if they please, they’re invited to borrow another patch from our compatibilistic ship: Not only can there be byproduct trivialities, but there can also be byproduct “raah,” like wildfires, earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, lava flows, meteoroids, lightning, blizzards, famines, floods, plagues, etc.

Some of these may have ancillary consequences — the more ancillary the better — but we need not ascribe to them “total teleology,” frantically searching for folks like Hindus or gay people or pervasive demons or “Christians-from-wrong-denominations” to blame.

Contribution 2

It relieves us of the existential gravity of being causal creatures. We can more easily imagine ourselves as spontaneous originators and “co-writers of history.” We can flee from the nihilism of reductive analysis; before, we were called to box an existential heavyweight, but now we don’t even have to get in the ring.

Problem 2.1: Analysis Nags

When we look up at the starry sky, it appears as if all of the stars are the same distance away from us. But when we use observational instruments other than our “eyes & guts,” we see that this is false; they’re at all sorts of different distances.

Our “eyes & guts” tell us that we’re quite spontaneous. But other observational instruments keep telling us that we aren’t. We act according to who we are, and who we are is a function of what makes us tick.

Now, as a Christian, I have a faith-premise in some supernatural stuff. It comes with the territory. But supernaturalism is often used as a shoehorn toward arbitrary conclusions. And one way it protects this maneuver is through “gapping.”

By defining a treasure in an ambiguous or indiscernible way, there’s no way to disprove its existence. It establishes a “bunker,” “sandbag,” or “motte” — a “gap.”

Atheists accuse believers of positing a “God of the Gaps” all the time, and — to a point — there’s some validity to this indictment, especially because some believers recklessly plaster supernaturalism onto everything.

But we have faith in “He Who Is Unseen”; Paul tells us that unlike the readily tangible and powerless idols, God is powerful and wants to be sought, though he is not far from any of us. In other words, there is purpose in God’s veil of subtlety.

Here, though, folks take shelter in a “spontaneous will of the gaps,” and there is no such teleology explaining it.

No matter what analysis or observations we make, “something-or-other” can always live in the “something-or-other zone” (it’s no coincidence that libertarian free will lacks a coherent, positive definition; it is a “something-or-other”).

Problem 2.2: Coherent Remedial Response is Ruined by Spontaneity

When a child is spoiled, whom do we blame?

We don’t apply “buck-stops-here” responsibility for the child’s bad behavior.

But nor do we excuse the child.

Rather, we assign responsibility to every cofactor, focusing especially on those cofactors with the capacity to recognize a problem and the power to change catalyzing circumstances.

In short, we focus our attention on the parents and other environmental cofactors.

But the dynamism of responsibility (which entails a rejection of folk responsibility) is predicated on the fact that our decisions are influenced, molded, and knitted by prior causes.

How can this be reconciled with having a “free will”?

The compatibilist solution is to say that there is a sort of free will in the gap of human understanding and an interest in formative self-guidance:

  • If I don’t know what’s causing you to do choose something bad (let’s talk about only bad behavior for now), I call that your “free will.”
  • If I know what’s causing you to do something bad, but can anticipate you coming to correction in your own time, I also call that your “free will.”
  • If, however, I know what’s causing you to do something bad, and cannot anticipate a self-guided turn-around, then I do not call that your “free will”; rather, I call it a disease or defect or disorder. No longer can you be held exhaustively culpable for persisting in your bad behavior. And if I know how to cure you of your disease and can easily do so, then I bear culpability by omission until I help cure it (and can be blamed or credited for any delay, depending on the prospects and costs thereof).

This should be rather intuitive. But the idea of spontaneity allows us to insert “buck-stops-here culpability-breaks.”

And what does that do for us? It lets us excuse potential “surgeons” of their omissive culpability!

And certain eschatologies need this excuse, else they become theodicean problems.

We talked before how folk responsibility is used as a logical wildcard. It rears its head here, too. One minute, an Open Theist named Linda might claim that George can become rooted in his behavior and lose his spontaneity. The next, she’ll use George’s spontaneity to excuse the “Great Surgeon” of omissive culpability for George’s predicament.

The former claim and latter excuse are not at all consonant. Typically, Linda’s confusion comes from equivocating George’s past spontaneity (where culpability still lived with George) with “current spontaneity” (or lack thereof, such that current-George is inexorably enslaved to bad decisions of past-George and needs external help).

Problem 2.3: God’s Still Sovereign

I don’t mean to say that Open Theism denies God’s sovereignty. Many Open Theologies uphold God’s sovereignty with certain re-stipulations.

The issue is that even under Open Theism, God’s “wholly puppeteering will” follows from benign premises unless and until compatibilism is employed to erase the qualifier “wholly puppeteering” through forms.

We’ve talked before about these ingredients:

  • God has the raw power to do anything (at least things that are logically possible); if there is a coherent challenge to be met, God could do it if he net-wanted to.
  • God knows everything about the past and present.
  • God is occasionally willing to intervene and influence to various degrees.
  • God has done this before, sometimes gratuitously.

Within the first ingredient, the following is entailed:

  • No matter what happens, God can functionally undo it, such that it would not “stick.” Even if he cannot rewind time, he can manipulate particles and memories to duplicate the function of rewinding time.

These ingredients yield the following 2 “question-answer” pairs:

  • When would something happen and “stick”? When and only when letting-stick conforms to God’s net-wants.
  • When would something be “undone”? When and only when that undoing conforms to God’s net-wants.

Notice the reductive, ultimate appeal that answers both questions?

Now, remember that reduction destroys meaning. The above chain of logic — and its reductive conclusion — feel horrible and nihilistic, even as they are inarguable (assuming we agree on the premises).

beach1

So, how do we “get out” of this? How do we come up for air?

Again, we have a little fork in the road, this time 4-pronged:

  • We can “come up for air” by cupping hands over ears and reverting to non-analysis.

    beach2
  • We can “come up for air” by using logical wildcards (like folk responsibility and libertarian freedom) to bridge-break the logic.

    beach2
  • We can “come up for air” by denying the premises. A subset of Open Theists, for example, has dabbled in denying God’s raw power. A weak God would not yield the sovereign conclusion; theodicy is solved by positing a God “wholly willing, but unable.”

    beach2
  • We can “come up for air” by plowing forward, blasting through the nihilism of reduction to capture our refined, meaningful forms.

    beach3

The last is entailed by compatibilism.

Formation is a function of discriminating interests.

One such discriminating interest is that between “directly affected stuff vs. stuff affected through distant indirection.” The forms that emerge from such an interest allow us to take a HUGE breath after ascending from the fish’s belly of reduction.

Some Open Theists sense this payoff!

Some will even package this interest-driven discrimination into a stipulative (“True Scotsman”) redefinition of sovereignty and/or power, e.g., “True power is that which subtly influences.”

(This is like to borrowing a patch from the compatibilistic ship but claiming it was in the other cargo hold all along.)

Problem 2.4: Its Theodicean Sword is Borrowed

It’s one thing to appeal to a permissive interest in indirection. But you have to further claim that this is part of a manifold interest set, in which there are two or more interests that are incommensurable.

That’s because we know that God isn’t just interested in indirection or permission or “allowing for free will” or what have you. We know that he’s also interested in beautiful stuff like “nonsuffering.”

Circumstantial incommensurability within a manifold interest set (“CIWAMIS”), in other words, acts like a “from-God confounder” that tells us why we might have both a benevolent God and bad stuff in the world.

We get theodicean “oomph” from CIWAMIS.

But here’s the upshot: “God’s not knowing the future” and/or “libertarian free will” has no “oomph” without it!

In other words, “God’s not knowing the future” and “libertarian free will” both bragged about their theodicean “oomph,” but were just brandishing CIWAMIS’s sword, while claiming it was their smithery.

And CIWAMIS, as it turns out, lends its theodicean sword to all sorts of theologies, including compatibilistic theologies.

Quick Break

I want to point out that at this point, we’ve taken the wind out of Open Theism’s theodicean sails.

But simply:

  • Remove libertarian free will; replace with “compatibilistic free will” or “natural will” or something.
  • Remove folk responsibility; replace with dynamic responsibility.
  • Uphold God’s discriminating interest in “direct/indirect” influence.
  • Uphold CIWAMIS.

Zero theodicean “oomph” is lost in the above cookie recipe. The cookies still taste great, perhaps even better, after we replace the raisins with chocolate chips.

Contribution 3

It would let us take Scripture at face value — rather than anthropomorphically and/or hyperbolically — when it talks about God changing his mind on appeal or having regrets. Rather we’d be able to say, “He genuinely didn’t know what future would be realized and reacted upon that future becoming realized.”

Problem 3.1: Face Value is Still Denied Selectively

We depend on anthropomorphic and/or hyperbolic interpretations anyway.

That’s because a face-value interpretation makes God not merely uncertain, but capricious and recklessly curiosity-driven. He wouldn’t just be imperfect at prediction — he’d have to be really, really terrible at it.

The “waiting to see” and “fickle” passages do not supply proof texts for those Open Theologies actually being proposed, which generally go out of their way to laud God’s exhaustive wisdom to guide history through subtle influences and maintain a stability of interests and firmness in purpose.

Often an Open Theologian will admit that Genesis 6 (for example) is being rather hyperbolic for whatever reason (to resonate with fickle man? to express CIWAMIS via athropomorphism? both?) when it talks about God regretting having made mankind… and beasts… and birds.

Problem 3.2: The Book of Job Lacks it

This would be a fallacious argument from silence, except that the Book of Job goes out of its way cover all sorts of theodicean proposals (most rebuked). It’s bizarre that it lacks any sort of libertarian excuse-making (i.e., “I didn’t do this to you; Satan did!”) if such a thing ought indeed be considered legitimate theodicy.

Job is rebuked (and repents) for claiming that God lacks justice and/or is distant and powerless.

The three stooges of Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are rebuked for claiming that Job’s predicament was a perfect divine expression of karmic justice, and that all lowly humans deserve unbridled suffering for their failing such a lofty God.

By contrast, Elihu, who (1) boasts perfect knowledge, (2) introduces the Storm of God, and (3) is never rebuked, weaves a theodicy of hope. He affirms God as super-powerful, completely wise, firm in purpose, despising nobody, and the ultimate teacher of mankind.

This is the theodicy that introduces the Storm, after which Job admits having failed to ascertain the grand plan “to wonderful for me to know.”

God’s superordinate responsibility (in a hierarchical stack) + a theodicy of corollary and ancillary function?

Such are the hull and sails of the U. S. S. Compatibilism.

Problem 3.3: That God is Worse

Josephus has a must-read account of the story of Abraham and Isaac. In it, God’s purpose is explicated: To see what’ll happen! ‘I’m going to tell Abraham to do this horrifying thing and see what he does.’

Afterward, this God is genuinely surprised; ‘Wow, I’m shocked at how readily you did that!’

The hilarious part about Josephus’s account is that both Abraham and Isaac reason a prospective justification for God’s command, that is, they conclude that God — in his wisdom and foresight — knew that Isaac would otherwise undergo some horrible disease or murder or other “severity” if Isaac were not kindly slain now.

In other words, in the face of divine inexplicability, they reason an explanation that preserves both God’s benevolence (in terms of prospective aims and investments) and cosmic foresight.

The reason this is hilarious is because — in Josephus’s account — the God in which Abraham and Isaac believed is clearly better (in terms of benevolence) and wiser (in terms of foresight) than the “actual” God (presented by the omniscient narrator).

When we finish reading the story, and our own giggles fade to crickets, we come to the sobering realization that a God subjecting people to tests out of reckless curiosity — instead of benevolent ancillary investment and/or corollaries to creative processes — is indeed “less good.”

The common response is an insistence that only this “less good” situation is fertile turf to garden “genuine love.” Seasoned compatibilists, however, have been trained by experience to spot “genuine/authentic/true/real” persuasive stipulations a mile away. This one is the product of “genuineness by association.

The Breakdown

“Open Theism helps with theodicy.”

  • It relies on folk responsibility which is demonstrably bad.
  • “Creation’s deterministic trivialities” argumentum ad absurdum.
    • Patch: Concede to “determinism does not entail micromanagement” from compatibilism.
      or
    • Posit indeterminism even of non-choosing things; “the falling leaves have libertarian openness.”
  • “Creation’s deterministic raah” argumentum ad absurdum.
    • Patch: Concede “determinism does not entail micromanagement” from compatibilism.
      or
    • Jury-rig: “Demons do those things.”
      or
    • Posit indeterminism even of non-choosing things; “the falling boulders have libertarian openness.”

“Open Theism prevents the existential anxiety of the loss of origination.”

  • Deeper analysis has been scoring slam dunks and three-pointers only for the following team: “We decide based on who we are, which is a function of that which makes us tick.”
    • Obfuscate: “Gapping” maneuvers keep the game clock going. But a deliberately subtle God would preclude overt detection; there is no such teleological explanation for the “gapping” of libertarian free will.
  • A coherent theology of remediation is selectively ruined by spontaneity. This is woefully useful because certain eschatologies need such selective ruination.
  • God’s superordinate responsibility still pops from his classical attributes like toast from a toaster, even if he has no clue about the future.
    • Obfuscate: Revert to non-analysis.
      or
    • Obfuscate: Logical wildcards to bridge-break the logic.
      or
    • Jury-rig: Explore “weak God” theology.
      or
    • Patch: Borrow “direct/indirect” formation from compatibilism.
  • It never had theodicean “oomph” anyway. The “oomph” was from “CIWAMIS”: circumstantial incommensurability within a manifold interest set. Compatibilism can fence with the same sword (and is, in fact, more adept at it).

“Open Theism plays more nicely with Scripture.”

  • Open Theologies actually being proposed leverage the same “anthropomorphic and/or hyperbole” interpretations as compatibilist Christians to handle certain passages that would otherwise have God being clueless or capricious.
  • The Book of Job is theodicean. It has a libertarian defense readily available to it and avoids its use, preferring instead God’s superordinate responsibility. Neither Job, nor the three stooges, nor “perfect knowledge” Elihu, nor the Storm of God employ it.
  • A “mad scientist” God is worse, as exemplified in the laughably upside-down account of Abraham & Isaac given to us by Josephus.
    • Obfuscate: Persuasive stipulation of what “genuine love” requires. (An ancient maneuver that has always been non-cogent.)

Final Remarks

If you’re an Open Theist, I hope this has at least piqued your curiosity in solutions pioneered by compatiblistic theology and perhaps fostered some prudent internal scrutiny.

In appealing to scrutiny, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t admit my own fallibility. But I nonetheless have conviction that compatibilism is the way to go. It’s a really, really, really great ship, resolute enough and flexible enough to navigate the waters of Scripture Sea.

In addition to the in-line hyperlinks in this post, check out the following:

shared

About stanrock

Husband, father. Professional game developer, software engineer, & social product analyst. Armchair theology debugger. Fun theology exercises and games at http://StanRock.net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: