If Witnesses deny that the future is alethically settled, then it seems that neither objection can get off the ground. Contrary to the initial open theist objection articulated earlier, Witnesses would not have missed the main point of open theism. And it seems that they could still object to exhaustive foreknowledge on the grounds that it is contrary to human freedom. So, I will try to prove that this position is at least implicitly taught in Witness literature.
The main point in favor of the claim that Witnesses affirm an alethically settled future is that they claim that God can know the future, not merely have reasonably well-established beliefs about what is or is not likely to occur. This by itself suggests that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled. A second, more specific reason for concluding that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled is that at least one of the methods for knowing the future that they ascribe to God entails that the future is alethically settled. To explain this second point I will now describe two methods of foreknowledge that Witness literature ascribes to God.
First, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the Chess Grandmaster par excellence; this is method one foreknowledge. Through inference based off of his knowledge of the past and present as well as knowledge of his own power God is able to know whatever he wants to know about the future.[1] The March 1, 1968 Watchtower (pp. 133-134) seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge. It contrasts the ability of humans, who can only rarely have “a remarkably accurate view of the future” with God’s unlimited ability to have a completely accurate view of the future. Some further germane quotations will show that this article seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge to God. “What makes it possible to predict future events accurately? Important would be having a knowledge of all the factors that might affect the matter.” “Whereas humans are generally incapable of knowing all the necessary information, and of analyzing it properly, there does exist ‘One perfect in knowledge’ and who is thus able accurately to foretell the future.” “Jehovah God is unlimited in his powers to foretell the future, because not only does he possess all the facts, but he can control all the factors.” A more recent Watchtower article states that “one reason why Jehovah can foretell the future is that he has the power to make things happen. He does not need to fast-forward, so to speak, to see what the future will bring—as if all future events have already happened in some form and Jehovah merely reviews them in advance.”[2] (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30)
Second, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the great Intuitionist; this is method two foreknowledge. He simply sees the future as one might see a tree or rationally perceive the truthfulness of the law of non-contradiction. A June 1, 1953 Watchtower article states, “What he foreknows takes place because of the infallibility of his power of perception into the future.” (pp. 336-341) That the article describes his power of foreknowledge as “perception” suggests that they may mean a method of knowing the future as was just described. A January 1, 2011 Watchtower article states, “The ability to refrain from using foreknowledge can be illustrated with a feature of modern technology. Someone watching a prerecorded sports match has the option to watch the final minutes first in order to know the outcome. But he does not have to start that way.”[3] Obviously by skipping to the end one would simply see how things end up at the conclusion of the match. Such knowledge would not be the result of an inference based on its initial moments. In other words, the method of foreknowledge that this article seems to propose is method two foreknowledge. God has (and at least usually exercises) his ability “to refrain from using” his power of “foreknowledge” to see a previously unknown but apparently alethically settled future as one might choose to refrain from skipping ahead in a recording of an as-of-yet unknown but alethically settled sports match.
Lastly, that Witnesses concede that it was possible for God to have foreknown the fall appears to commit them to more than the first method of foreknowledge described above, since presumably it would not have been possible to determine from the still sinless Adam that he would, in fact, ever sin. (January 1, 1951 Watchtower, pp. 31-32) In Witness theology, Adam was made without any sinful tendencies. So all of the available evidence, if anything, would suggest that he would pass any test he came up against. Past and present evidence could not be used to know that Adam would sin. Likewise, in Witness theology, God trusts the Anointed when he bestows immortality upon them. His confidence is based on their life-record until that point. While Witness literature admits that it is still possible for the Anointed to sin, they think that it is utterly unlikely. In other words, God’s confidence is eminently reasonable. But this indicates that it is not possible to know (i.e, with complete, infallible, certitude) that an Anointed person will sin (or not) merely judging by knowledge of the past and present. Yet, if the Fall could have been foreknown, as Witnesses concede – or if God could choose to remove any scintilla of doubt about the Anointed – then something more than method one foreknowledge is required. This something more, I think, would have to be something like method two foreknowledge.
At least one Witness publication states that “we cannot be dogmatic about such matters” as “how or when he [foretells the future] or even how much he chooses to know”. (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30) Nevertheless, I believe that these two methods of foreknowledge are taught within Witness literature. The latter of which is most immediately damaging for the Witness, since it seems to presuppose the existence of an alethically settled, exhaustive description of the future. If God simply has an unlimited ability to perceive or intuit truths about the future, then there must be something “out there” for him to perceive, namely, a complete, true description of the future. If an affirmation of an alethically settled future is part of Witness theology, then the Witness rejection of complete foreknowledge on the grounds that the unalterable veracity of God’s knowledge is incompatible with creaturely freedom is nonsensical. There are already unalterable facts about the future that God can know. If this is not incompatible with genuine creaturely freedom, then what is it about God’s knowledge of these facts that would obliterate creaturely freedom? Nothing. So, by conceding an alethically settled future, Witnesses theology removes any reasonable grounds to object to exhaustive foreknowledge as somehow contrary to creaturely freedom. Consequently, Witnesses should give up this argument against the orthodox position that God foreknows everything.
If, however, my argument that Witness theology at least implicitly teaches an alethically settled future were not well-founded, the main argument of this essay – that the Witness opposition to exhaustive foreknowledge as being somehow contrary to creaturely freedom is nonsensical – might still succeed. If in Witness theology the future is alethically settleable without injury to creaturely freedom, then this argument still accomplishes its goal. And Witness literature might make this claim, at least implicitly. This will be discussed in part three.
[1] Witnesses say that God can know the future by this means, but in my opinion this is not plausible. Such a method seems to be capable of attaining probabilities, not certitude. Nevertheless what is most salient for this essay is what Witnesses attribute to this method, namely, knowledge.
[2] This quotation seems to contrast two methods for being able to know the future, which correspond to the methods I am presently discussing. One is based on conjecture and control and the other based on simply perceiving. Moreover, the article says that God does not need to adopt the latter method, not that he cannot do so. This by itself suggests that Witness literature would have us believe that God is capable of this second method.
[3] Note how this method matches the description of the method mentioned in the quotation from the February, 2024 Watchtower quoted at the end of the last paragraph. God does not need to employ this method, according to Witness theology, but it seems that he can do so
No comments:
Post a Comment