How Free Will and Omniscience Works
August 30, 2012 at 2:57 am
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2012 at 2:58 am by idunno.)
The proper name for this dilemma is Theological Fatalism.
To borrow the hypothetical from GodlessGirl's thread,
You have to choose between an apple an an orange. So if this all-knowing God knows you are going to pick the apple but you choose the orange you have just negated Gods omniscience. If you are unable to pick the orange then you have negated free will.
The underlying premise to this argument is that the 'Principle for Alternative Possibilities' (PAP) is a necessary requirement for free will. That is, in order for my decision to be truly free I have to be able to pick the orange.
However, Harry Frankfurt has argued that this is false, the PAP isn't necessary for free will. Here is an example of some of his work,
Donald is a Democrat and is likely to vote for the Democrats; in fact, only in one particular circumstance will he not: that is, if he thinks about the prospects of immediate American defeat in Iraq just prior to voting. Ms White, a representative of the Democratic Party, wants to ensure that Donald votes Democratic, so she secretly plants a device in Donald's head that, if activated, will force him to vote Democratic. Not wishing to reveal her presence unnecessarily, Ms White plans to activate the device only if Donald thinks about the Iraq War prior to voting. As things happen, Donald does not think about Iraq prior to voting, so Ms White thus sees no reason to activate the device, and Donald votes Democratic of his own accord. Apparently, Donald is responsible for voting Democratic although, owing to Ms. White's device, he lacks freedom to do otherwise. link
God's omniscience, like Mr. White's device, removes the ability to do otherwise but that doesn't necessarily negate free will.
To borrow the hypothetical from GodlessGirl's thread,
You have to choose between an apple an an orange. So if this all-knowing God knows you are going to pick the apple but you choose the orange you have just negated Gods omniscience. If you are unable to pick the orange then you have negated free will.
The underlying premise to this argument is that the 'Principle for Alternative Possibilities' (PAP) is a necessary requirement for free will. That is, in order for my decision to be truly free I have to be able to pick the orange.
However, Harry Frankfurt has argued that this is false, the PAP isn't necessary for free will. Here is an example of some of his work,
Donald is a Democrat and is likely to vote for the Democrats; in fact, only in one particular circumstance will he not: that is, if he thinks about the prospects of immediate American defeat in Iraq just prior to voting. Ms White, a representative of the Democratic Party, wants to ensure that Donald votes Democratic, so she secretly plants a device in Donald's head that, if activated, will force him to vote Democratic. Not wishing to reveal her presence unnecessarily, Ms White plans to activate the device only if Donald thinks about the Iraq War prior to voting. As things happen, Donald does not think about Iraq prior to voting, so Ms White thus sees no reason to activate the device, and Donald votes Democratic of his own accord. Apparently, Donald is responsible for voting Democratic although, owing to Ms. White's device, he lacks freedom to do otherwise. link
God's omniscience, like Mr. White's device, removes the ability to do otherwise but that doesn't necessarily negate free will.
