Sunday, July 17, 2011

Omnipotence and Practical Freedom

Alleged God's alleged omnipotence has been a subject here recently. The discussion on omnipotence has been instructive as an example of how these grand claims for God start to weaken and wither under scrutiny. We're told first that God is omnipotent, and then we're told that even God's power has boundaries. Like it or not, this is a downgrade of God akin to what has happened to God in the face of advances in the biological and physical sciences. The more we learn and establish about reality, the less present and prominent God becomes: that gaps are becoming ever more unworthy of a being we should worship.

But the downgraded God is the one that gets defended in the video below. The case made to the faithful is that God is all-powerful but he can't do what is logically impossible. Therefore, he could not have both given people freedom and forced people to obey him.


I'm not comfortable with the casual assertion that God cannot do what is logically impossible because it is based not on the Bible, not on biblical commentary, and not on religious doctrine. The assertion rather derives from recognizing that true omnipotence is a logically incoherent concept. The assertion, in other words, has only the function of defending a semblance of omnipotence so that people can continue to feel warranted in worshiping the god of the Jewish and Christian bibles. 

To illustrate the problem of the declaration that God cannot do the logically impossible, let's expand the phrasing: God cannot do what we consider to be logically impossible. Now, the implications of the problem rise to the surface:
  • If God cannot do what is logically impossible (the original phrasing), then there are things that are impossible for any being to perform. Any being: plants, animals, gods, and humans. In this sense, all beings are equal before that law. And if we are peers even in a limited sense, then we have cause and reason to state that any individual being can assert independence from the governance and interference of another being.
  • If God cannot do what we consider to be logically impossible, then things get more complicated. On the one hand, we seem to be imposing human logical systems on God. He cannot operate outside of a system of our own making and discovery. On the other hand, if God actually is not constrained by our logic, or our perceptions of logic, then perhaps he can make a universe governed by a super-logic such that square circles and so forth are coherent entities.
  • If God cannot do what is logically impossible, in the first sense, then we can easily imagine a being whose powers either sidestep or transcend those boundaries. A being such a the new one we have imagined would, per the various ontological arguments, be greater and therefore a better candidate for God than the Abrahamic god. 
Claiming that God cannot violate the logically impossible also brings the divine reasoning into question: if God is omnipotent in the way described in the video, wouldn't it have been easy to make the logical move of not placing a prohibited item in the Garden of Eden at all? Without the fruit-one-must-not-eat, Adam and Eve would have still had freedom to act, but they would never have been in danger of doing the very bad thing that wound up condemning all humanity (according to the story, that is). Wouldn't this have been a better way to proceed?

But my larger point in the earlier post and in this one has little to do with the philosophy of omnipotence. I don't actually care that much about omnipotence as a concept. What I care about is that all of this intellectual energy is being put in the service of defending the conclusion that God exists and we should worship him. In the face of mounting evidence and logic, this conclusion is untenable and has been for some time.

10 comments:

  1. > And if we are peers even in a limited sense, then we have cause and reason to state that any individual being can assert independence from the governance and interference of another being.

    You’ve made this sort of argument before, but I don’t understand what your point is. Suppose that God exists, but is limited to what is logically possible. You can assert independence all you like, but if you don’t do what He says, you’re going to be in trouble.

    Maybe I’m too much of a pragmatist, but I don’t see why I should care if God is a transcendental being or worthy of worship. All I want to know is does He exist, and if so, does He care about what I do. The rest is academic.

    > wouldn't it have been easy to make the logical move of not placing a prohibited item in the Garden of Eden at all?

    You’re assuming that the goal was for Adam and Eve NOT to eat the fruit. Maybe God is a sadist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. G*3,

    I'll try to express the point by responding to what you say: "You can assert independence all you like, but if you don’t do what He says, you’re going to be in trouble."

    The point is that (imagining, for a moment, that God exists) we have a valid framework for asserting a legitimate independence from God. Legitimate independence is absolutely huge because the religious view of the world, in most cases, tells us that people can only rebel against God. In the religious view of the world, one has no moral grounds or path for personal sovereignty apart from God. But as I have shown, we can find that moral ground and that legitimate path--and neither theology nor religious teachings can cover up these things.

    What's more, it may be as you say: "if you don’t do what He says, you’re going to be in trouble." But if you accept my point and agree that God does not have full authority over people, then you can see that He only puts people in "trouble" through being a tyrant. If we--God and humanity--are all bound by what is logically possible, then we can ask that God's actions be justified for logical coherence.

    To your final paragraph: I approach things a bit differently than you do. I've accepted that God doesn't exist and that there never has been a God (or gods). The question of existence doesn't interest me much. What does interest me is the thinking over the questions of God's existence and nature, as well as the practical applications of that thinking.

    That's why I feature an awful video like the one in this post. Ultimately, the focus of the video is on people, not God. Humanity, in the form of Adam and Eve, abused their God-given freedom. Humanity, in the form of you and me, suffers. We have transgressed and our hearts are aching, this is the religious story.

    It's a story of fellowship and magic, and driven by the promise that someday all our troubles (and freedom, presumably) will be put to an end. It's a story that is soothing for the overarching plan and disturbing in its details.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > then you can see that He only puts people in "trouble" through being a tyrant

    Sure. So what? So maybe God isn’t nice, He isn’t good, he isn’t even truly omnipotent or omniscient. He isn’t a Being worthy of worship, He commands things because He feels like it rather than because it’s rational or logical or good. What practical difference does that make?

    > To your final paragraph…

    I see. So your post IS purely academic. Fair enough.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "What practical difference does that make?"

    The practical difference it makes is that we should each go according to what seems rational and right to us. The pronouncements and instructions of "God" hold no great or special weight. Give charity to whomever you want for whatever cause you like. Eat when and what you think will best nourish you. Speak or refrain from speaking as you like. And so on. There's no practical reason to bind yourself to instructions based on "God's" authority. If you want to call yourself a Jew and live according to what this or that group says is "authentic Judaism," that's fine too, but it's based on desire and an affinity with a certain tradition, not on anything of practical import.

    This is the practical difference. I don't think my interests and motives are purely academic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Billy Smoke8:39 AM

    Larry!

    Thanks for taking this topic up in a separate post. Good times.

    You say:

    “We're told first that God is omnipotent, and then we're told that even God's power has boundaries. Like it or not, this is a downgrade of God akin to what has happened to God in the face of advances in the biological and physical sciences.”

    Or in syllogism:

    1. God is omnipotent
    2. God’s power has boundaries
    3. Therefore, God’s status is downgraded

    Unless they’ve recently changed the definition of “downgraded,” your conclusion is a non sequitur. In other words, it seems that you have made up your own definition of omnipotence, one that not only the Biblical authors, but philosophers, would be uncomfortable with. Instead, you’ve postulated “true omnipotence”. What is that?

    What I think you’re implying is that omnipotence means not just the ability to do all that is possible within the confines of God’s will, but also anything conceived, even if it is logically absurd. Thus, God creating a rock that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, or a square circle. Using your definition, then, God would be something less than God if could not simultaneously exist and will that he never existed in the first place. Talk about super logic.

    I understand that you think that the whole notion of omnipotence is self-undermining insofar as you think it is inherently illogical. But this can only be the case if you’ve considered not what seems to be a strawman definition—“true omnipotence”—but the historic one. Or you could just define and defend “true omnipotence,” historically and philosophically.

    Thanks!

    Billy

    ReplyDelete
  6. "it seems that you have made up your own definition of omnipotence, one that not only the Biblical authors, but philosophers, would be uncomfortable with. Instead, you’ve postulated 'true omnipotence'. What is that?"

    I sought to use a term like "true omnipotence" (a similar term that others have used is "unlimited omniscience") to mean the ability to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible ones. Descartes seems to have had such a notion, while thinkers from Aquinas to Maimonides thought the notion was incoherent.

    "Downgrade" is a biased term, to be sure, but it generally fits and follows in the argument I am making. In any case, we have come to agree on a couple of key points:
    (1) Most thinkers today believe that if God existed, he would have limits on his power.
    (2) We can imagine a being that would have no such limits. That is, we are able to conceive that a being would exist that had "true" or unlimited omnipotence.

    I think you are missing the larger point, however. Per my item #2 above, you and I can conceive of a being that has more power than that ascribed to God. We're conceiving that being now. It does not matter at all that this being is not the God of Aquinas or Plantinga. What matters is that we can imagine a being that has all the maximal power ascribed ascribed to God plus some extra power that defies our sense of logic and understanding.

    You seem to accept that we can and do indeed conceive of beings that are more powerful than God...

    And so the real point of what I posted: omnipotence is a fascinating concept. It makes a nice intellectual and imaginative diversion. But the question of omnipotence seems to do little but reinforce the outdated axiom of God's existence. It is not a question that really helps us understand the world any better. It doesn't help us to live our lives to fulfillment. it doesn't help guide us in any way.

    It's a fascinating question but ultimately an intellectual dead-end. I raise the question to reject the question itself, to suggest that we move away from treating such concepts as omnipotence very seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:33 AM

    You make a great deal out of the Bible never claiming that God can't do the logically-impossible. But where does God claim that He is omnipotent? It surely doesn't use the word "omnipotent" (since it is originally in Hebrew), and, if so, how do we know whether the Bible itself would assert that God is capable of doing what we consider to be logically impossible?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Billy Smoke1:54 PM

    Hey Larry,

    Good rejoinder, even if this does end in a dead end!

    1. I am aware of Descartes ‘universal possibilism.’ But it makes no sense to me, at least conclusively. Says William Craig, “Descartes' position is incredible. It asks us to believe, for example, that God could have brought it about that He created all of us without His existing, that is to say, there is a possible world in which both God does not exist and He created all of us. This is simply nonsense.”

    To the things you say we should agree on,

    2. “Most thinkers today believe that if God existed, he would have limits on his power.” Yes, but only if by “limits” you mean that God cannot act outside of his own character.

    3. “We can imagine a being that would have no such limits. That is, we are able to conceive that a being would exist that had ‘true’ or unlimited omnipotence.” I’m not sure why you think this has any weight. An ontological conception of absurdity does not necessitate absurdity. In other words, it is not refuting to say that any conception of God that seems to undermine omnipotence is therefore actually undermining. One actually has to prove that.

    4. “What matters is that we can imagine a being that has all the maximal power ascribed to God plus some extra power that defies our sense of logic and understanding.” (1) How does this matter? (2) This is a non-starter. For, you can’t assume that it’s possible what we’re all experiencing is the imposed super-logic of God and, at the same time, have a logical conversation about it. In the end, your position is at least untenable as mine, for you have to assume the logical necessities of the universe to have this debate in the first place. If you are correct that omnipotence entails the power to do anything conceived of, we wouldn’t actually, therefore, be able to have a conversation about it.

    5. “You seem to accept that we can and do indeed conceive of beings that are more powerful than God.” Agreed, but only in the same way I could conceive that my daughter be 3 years old and 35 at the same time. I can conceive of illogicalities all day long, but that doesn’t mean they’re actual.

    6. Your last two paragraphs beg the question, but you seem to be fine with that. Recall, however, that this topic came up as we discussed the real-world problem of evil and suffering. For plenty of people, it is important that there be some logical consistency between an all-powerful, good God and the existence of evil. In other words, it helps them understand the world better.

    Thanks! On to the next topic...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    Good question. In the biblical canon, several passages have been used by commentators and theologians to assert omnipotence as an attribute of God. I don't know the exact cites off the top of my head, but I'm remembering several verses in the Psalms. I also believe that Revelations has a strong statement attributing omnipotence to God. In fact, IIRC the word "omnipotence" may actually be used in Revelations.

    Your how-do-we-know question is one that commentators and theologians have sought to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Billy Smoke,

    1. Fair enough, but I have not exactly made up omnipotence as I have been using the term.

    2. Then we agree.

    3. I'm not sure why you think it holds no weight. Perhaps unlimited omnipotence is an absurdity, perhaps it isn't. You seem to have a lot of faith in human logic. Why is that?

    In any event, my God is clearly more powerful than yours!

    4. No idea what you are trying to argue here.

    5. "I can conceive of illogicalities all day long, but that doesn’t mean they’re actual." Well...not sure 'illogicality' is the right term for a being that can bring about a state of affairs that overwhelms the reasoning ability of a human being, but let's go with it. You can conceive of "logicalities" all day long, and that doesn't mean they're actual either. As I've argued, theology doesn't seem to be very good at mapping to the actual. We are at a point in intellectual history, I think, where the inability to map to the actual should eventually and rationally lead to not taking the discipline very seriously.

    6. Not sure what question I beg or how so. I understand that some need to have their idea of a good god and that evil be explained apart from that god. I disagree that their rationalizations amount to a better understanding of the world. Indeed, all this thrashing around on omnipotence has actually taken our focus away from the world. As the terrible events in Norway suggest, the world might better profit if we were paying attention to what was going on there.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.