Pages

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Advance warning


Arminian Roger Olson as well as neotheist Gregory Boyd have both been critical of John Piper when he attributes natural disasters to divine agency.

Let’s consider a natural disaster like the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which resulted in 6-12K fatalities. The reason that hurricane killed so many human beings is because, back in 1900, we didn’t have the technology to assess hurricanes on a scale of 1-5, or predict when and where they’d make landfall. As such, Texans had no advance warning of the impending catastrophe.

By contrast, Olson’s Arminian God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. Olson’s God knows what would happen if he gave the Texans advanced warning, as well as what would happen if he didn’t.

What about Gregory Boyd? Since hurricanes are not the result of libertarian freewill, there’s no reason why Boyd’s God couldn’t know when and where the Galveston hurricane would make landfall. But even if (arguendo) Boyd’s God didn’t know for sure, surely his God could forecast the event at least as accurately as the National Weather Service.

Why doesn’t Olson’s God or Boyd’s God give potential victims advance warning? That wouldn’t abridge their libertarian freedom. To the contrary, advance warning would enhance their freedom of choice. Give them more alternatives to choose from. Give them more freedom of opportunity. Same thing for Molinism.

If you don’t know that a high-category hurricane is headed your way, you can’t take precautionary measures. Ignorance limits your field of action. Limits your viable options.

But if you’re given due warning, even if you choose to disregard the warning, at least you had a choice (as libertarians define “choice”).

Not only does the freewill defense fail to explain God’s nonintervention in predictable natural disasters like hurricanes, but the freewill defense aggravates the problem of evil in this situation–for advance warning is not only consistent with libertarian freedom, it represents an expansion of freedom.

It’s not as if the 1900 Galveston residents chose to die in the hurricane. They didn’t know any better. Given the chance, many of them would have self-evacuated.

11 comments:

  1. Did you mention this problem with the Free Will/Open theist position to Olson himself? Have you ever interacted with Olson directly?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't care so much whether you have interacted with Olson or Boyd directly, but surely they (or folks holding similar positions) have responded to the problem of natural disasters/evil.

    Can you point us to what you believe to be the more thoughtful responses? (Or maybe "more thoughtful responses" is an oxymoron....)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Some thoughts:

    1) Natural disasters are only disasters when human beings are in the way. Otherwise they are simply weather events, part of the cycle of processes that keeps the Earth life-supporting.

    2) Even if you don't know when a specific hurricane is heading your way, there has long been knowledge of geographical regions prone to certain types of natural disasters. Egyptians know the Nile floods from time to time. Indians know that Monsoon season can be devastating. If God creates an orderly world exhibiting recurring weather patterns, human beings with their God-given rationality can either choose to settle in other regions, or make defensive preparations, such as Galveston made after the devastating hurricane. How many disasters are so fatal because inhabitants simply didn't make the right preparations? How many people in Kansas have storm shelters and have practiced procedures for what to do when a tornado hits?

    And if you say that many people are too poor or are distracted by other things, that is an illustration of how significant human accountability to each other is under freewill theism.

    3) On Boyd's warfare theodicy, there is a Satanic component to at least some extreme weather events. So the free-will defense is extended to angelic/demonic beings as well as humans. Some hurricanes may indeed be the result of libertarian free-will.

    4) On freewill theism, even though God doesn't predestine tragedies in order to bring good out of them, he is not surprised by anything and is always able to weave the outcome of libertarian free will and predictable natural processes into his ultimate victorious outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JD WALTERS SAID:

    “1) Natural disasters are only disasters when human beings are in the way. Otherwise they are simply weather events, part of the cycle of processes that keeps the Earth life-supporting.”

    I myself have made that point on more than one occasion. But in context (i.e. Olson/Boyd criticizing Piper), we’re specifically talking about natural disasters that wreak havoc on human communities.

    “2) Even if you don't know when a specific hurricane is heading your way, there has long been knowledge of geographical regions prone to certain types of natural disasters. Egyptians know the Nile floods from time to time. Indians know that Monsoon season can be devastating. If God creates an orderly world exhibiting recurring weather patterns, human beings with their God-given rationality can either choose to settle in other regions, or make defensive preparations, such as Galveston made after the devastating hurricane. How many disasters are so fatal because inhabitants simply didn't make the right preparations? How many people in Kansas have storm shelters and have practiced procedures for what to do when a tornado hits?”

    i) Some natural disasters are more predictable than others. Some are easier to prepare for than others. Some natural disasters are more common than others.

    ii) Natives of Galveston in 1900 might be familiar with the frequency of devastating hurricanes. You can’t assume that for newer residents who relocate to Galveston in 1895 (or whatever) from another region.

    iii) Many parts of the world are prone to natural disasters. And those that aren’t may be less hospitable in other respects.

    For instance, port towns may be subject to hurricanes and tsunamis, but port towns are also a source of commerce, viz. fishing and shipping. So there are tradeoffs between the risk of living there and the economic advantages. It’s not just for sandy beaches and pretty sunsets.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cont. iv) As you know, people have various reasons for living where they do, even if there are safer places to live. In many cases, people live where the jobs are. They can’t afford to live elsewhere.

    Likewise, human beings are social creatures. We often continue to live in the same area where we grew up because we’re emotionally attached to the folks we grew up with (e.g. parents, grandparents, childhood friends).

    Also, we may have a duty to look out for their welfare, and not desert them.

    “And if you say that many people are too poor or are distracted by other things, that is an illustration of how significant human accountability to each other is under freewill theism.”

    i) So if humans are merciless to teach other, then it’s okay for God to be merciless to humans? But the God of freewill theism is supposed to be more loving and caring than the God of Calvinism.

    ii) In addition, that simply relocates the theodicean issue. Is it right for the God of freewill theism to let some humans do irreparable harm to other humans?

    “3) On Boyd's warfare theodicy, there is a Satanic component to at least some extreme weather events. So the free-will defense is extended to angelic/demonic beings as well as humans. Some hurricanes may indeed be the result of libertarian free-will.”

    Even if we grant that implausible premise for the sake of argument, the fact remains that extreme weather events are technologically predicable. And the God of open theism can surely forecast the weather as well as the meteorologist on the local TV station.

    “4) On freewill theism, even though God doesn't predestine tragedies in order to bring good out of them, he is not surprised by anything and is always able to weave the outcome of libertarian free will and predictable natural processes into his ultimate victorious outcome.”

    i) My post was predicated on the fact that God isn’t surprised by natural disasters. And that generates a theodicean problem for freewill theism.

    ii) Freewill theists claim that God will ultimately be victorious, but isn’t that wishful thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  6. EDH SAID:

    "Did you mention this problem with the Free Will/Open theist position to Olson himself? Have you ever interacted with Olson directly?"

    Depends on what you mean. If you mean leaving comments on his blog, Olson has admitted that he censors Calvinists who try to leave comments on his blog.

    If you mean email, the problem with email correspondence is that unless it's publicized, it doesn't benefit anyone beyond the correspondents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bill,

    There are more sophisticated freewill theists than Olson and Boyd, but I'm not aware of more sophisticated responses to the problem I raised (for freewill theism).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "ii) Natives of Galveston in 1900 might be familiar with the frequency of devastating hurricanes. You can’t assume that for newer residents who relocate to Galveston in 1895 (or whatever) from another region."

    So it would be the moral responsibility of previous Galvestonians to educate the new arrivals. Obviously this doesn't actually happen in many cases, but this is an issue that falls within the freewill theodicy paradigm.

    "So there are tradeoffs between the risk of living there and the economic advantages. It’s not just for sandy beaches and pretty sunsets."

    Yes, indeed there are trade-offs. But part of the mandate to exercise dominion over nature presumably includes the imperative to be aware of those trade-offs and make appropriate preparations, if people do choose to stay in extreme weather regions due to other advantages.

    Of course, living in a fallen world means that nature is more hostile, and human beings are dull and self-centered.

    "i) So if humans are merciless to each other, then it’s okay for God to be merciless to humans? But the God of freewill theism is supposed to be more loving and caring than the God of Calvinism."

    God not overriding free-will and allowing certain tragic events to transpire does not equate to him being aloof and merciless. Within the self-limitations he has committed himself to in order to preserve the integrity of Creation, God is constantly active and constantly working to bring about His good purposes.

    "ii) In addition, that simply relocates the theodicean issue. Is it right for the God of freewill theism to let some humans do irreparable harm to other humans?"

    In order for moral choices to be meaningful, consistent consequences have to follow certain moral choices. But in light of the new heavens and the new earth, and the final victory which God is working to bring about, I don't think humans ever suffer irreparable harm from one another. God does allow human beings to inflict terrible harm on each other, but not irreparable. And I doubt that anyone's final destiny would be entirely in the hands of others. The deciding factor would be that person's free will decision.

    "Even if we grant that implausible premise for the sake of argument..."

    What's implausible about demonically aroused extreme weather events? I would think that's a pretty standard item of theology. Even under a Calvinist scheme, where even the Devil is only God's agent despite himself, the Devil does instigate many disasters and calamities.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "ii) Freewill theists claim that God will ultimately be victorious, but isn’t that wishful thinking?"

    I think the most plausible understanding of freewill theism is that God maintains enough control to ultimately get what He wants, while allowing the precise unfolding of the master plan to hinge on the free choices of human and other agents, as well as the regular unfolding of natural processes. The models I have seen for understanding divine providence on the open view make me confident that it has the resources to make sense of God's inevitable triumph. Alan Rhoda has a good paper on this:

    Beyond the Chess Master Analogy: Game Theory and Divine Providence

    ReplyDelete
  10. JD WALTERS SAID:

    “So it would be the moral responsibility of previous Galvestonians to educate the new arrivals. Obviously this doesn't actually happen in many cases, but this is an issue that falls within the freewill theodicy paradigm.”

    Except that your freewill theodicy generates its own problems. Here you’re treating new arrivals as collateral damage. Their destruction is the price one must pay for the paradigm.

    But that just relocates the problem. Is libertarian freedom worth the cost? Your theodicy is strikingly callous and hardnosed for someone who finds Calvinism too harsh.

    “Yes, indeed there are trade-offs. But part of the mandate to exercise dominion over nature presumably includes the imperative to be aware of those trade-offs and make appropriate preparations, if people do choose to stay in extreme weather regions due to other advantages. Of course, living in a fallen world means that nature is more hostile, and human beings are dull and self-centered.”

    i) You don’t show much awareness of just how hard it was in times past for ordinary people to eke out a living–not to mention folks in the Third World today. It’s not like they had lots of employment opportunities. Bare subsistence was a constant challenge.

    ii) In addition, it’s not as if, in centuries past, someone living in one region automatically knew in advance if another region was safer. Not as if they could Google which regions were prone to which natural disasters, do a comparative cost/benefit assessment, then migrate to a safer place.

    You have a very abstract, elitist theodicy that doesn’t address the actual situation in which many people found themselves.

    “God not overriding free-will and allowing certain tragic events to transpire does not equate to him being aloof and merciless. Within the self-limitations he has committed himself to in order to preserve the integrity of Creation, God is constantly active and constantly working to bring about His good purposes.”

    i) That’s a straw man argument. My post wasn’t predicated on God stopping the hurricane dead in its tracks. Rather, my post mentioned advance warning. That’s minimally intrusive. That doesn’t disrupt the “integrity” of creation. So your stable environment theodicy (a la Lewis) won’t fly.

    ii) As I argued in my post, advance warning doesn’t “override” freedom of choice. To the contrary, advance warning enhances freedom of choice. Gives people more options to choose from.

    God giving coastal residents advance warning of a devastating hurricane no more infringes on their freedom than a weatherman giving them advance warning. Do you think meteorology is incompatible with libertarian freedom or the integrity of creation?

    iii) But as far as that goes, your position also sounds deistic. Do you think God never intervenes in answer to prayer to avert natural disaster? If you make allowance for that, then you have no principled objection.

    “In order for moral choices to be meaningful, consistent consequences have to follow certain moral choices.”

    i) You’re equivocating. It’s one thing to say that my choices can’t be meaningful unless certain consequences normally follow from my choices–quite another to say moral choices can’t be meaningful unless my choices can have dire consequences for a second party who’s the unwilling victim of my reckless decisions

    Under the latter scenario, the consequences of my choices rob a second party of choices he would freely make. I end up choosing for him, against his will. He didn’t choose those consequences. I imposed those consequences on him.

    That doesn’t uphold libertarian freedom; rather, that denies some people the freedom to make their own decisions because their choices have been effectively co-opted by someone else, without their consent.

    It’s funny how libertarians reject the notion that God makes the ultimate decisions for us in favor of other men making the ultimate decisions for us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cont. ii) In addition, your formulation is pretty inflexible: “consistent consequences have to follow…” No room for mercy? An ironclad system chaining choices to inexorable consequences? Seems more Hindu or Buddhist (the law of karma) than Christian.

    “But in light of the new heavens and the new earth, and the final victory which God is working to bring about, I don't think humans ever suffer irreparable harm from one another.”

    The Biblical imagery of the new Eden/new Jerusalem includes corollary imagery about final separation between the saints and the damned.

    “And I doubt that anyone's final destiny would be entirely in the hands of others. The deciding factor would be that person's free will decision.”

    That’s a sweet sentiment, but I don’t see how you’ve integrated your optimism into a coherent position. There’s a tug-of-war between your commitment to God’s “final victory” and your commitment to the counteragent of man’s libertarian freedom.

    “What's implausible about demonically aroused extreme weather events? I would think that's a pretty standard item of theology.”

    It’s a “standard item of theology” to attribute floods, earthquakes, avalanches, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, landslides, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, &c. to demonic activity? Sounds more like a reversion to pagan animism, where major and minor gods pair off with natural forces, viz. sun gods, storm gods, sea gods, wood and water nymphs.

    “Even under a Calvinist scheme, where even the Devil is only God's agent despite himself, the Devil does instigate many disasters and calamities.”

    Calvinism attributes bubonic plague to the Devil? Really?

    ReplyDelete