God's playmates

 

JD Walters directed me to a paper by Alan Rhoda which lays out a freewill theist model of providence:

http://alanrhoda.net/papers/Beyond%20the%20Chessmaster%20Analogy.pdf

Rhoda helpfully begins with a general definition of his position:

Open theism is a theory of divine providence according to which God has sovereignly chosen to create a world in which his creatures have significant freedom to determine the direction of events. As a consequence of God’s decision, there is no such thing as a completely settled future for him (or anyone) to know. That is to say, there is no complete and unique sequence of events subsequent to the present that is or that is going to be the actual future. Instead, there is a branching array of possible futures.

Let’s compare his definition with some other statements:

Similarly, while it is plausible that no one can thwart the Chess Master’s general goal of victory, a determined opponent could easily thwart many of the chess master’s specific goals, especially if they were announced beforehand.

[Sanders]  This means that though God’s overarching purposes for creation cannot be frustrated, his particular desires for individuals and situations can be frustrated.

A God who does exhaustive contingency planning, one who, for every possibility, has formed a conditional resolution—if this should happen, then I will respond thusly—has no need for ad hoc decision-making. The decisions have already been made. What remains to be seen is which conditional resolutions will be carried out, that is, what actions God will perform in response to his creatures...Either God is able to do exhaustive contingency planning or he is not. If he is not, then that must be because he cannot anticipate all of the possibilities. But on a theistic worldview, all possibilities ultimately derive either from God’s nature or from God’s will, and so inability to anticipate all possibilities would seem to point to a failure of self-knowledge on God’s part, a failure that in turn seems diametrically at odds with the core theistic idea that God is a perfect knower. Alternatively, if God can do exhaustive contingency planning, then why wouldn’t he? It wouldn’t take a taxing effort on God’s part to do so, and not to do so would be to court unnecessary risks that might endanger not only God’s chances of obtaining his goals for creation but also the long-term prospects of those creatures who have allied themselves to God. I submit that this would amount to inexcusable recklessness on God’s part. If God can do exhaustive contingency planning, he definitely should.

But if, due to his exhaustive contingency plans, God’s overarching goal cannot be thwarted, then in what sense do “his creatures have significant freedom to determine the direction of events”? If God always wins in the long run, because he has a back-up plan for every play we make, then we aren’t determining the direction of events. At best we can stall for time. Postpone the inevitable.

But no matter what we choose to do, Rhoda’s God will always beat us in the long run. For every move we make, he has a countermove. So Rhoda’s model of providence is essentially fatalistic. No matter what you do, God gets his way. So what you do makes no difference to the ultimate outcome. Why endow creatures with the freedom to choose between alternate timelines if every alternate timeline leads to the same place?

Indeed, as Rhoda goes on to say:

In a mutually disadvantageous situation, the player that has the ability or the resources to “hold out” longer can generally induce the other player to compromise on his or her terms. For example, in the game of Chicken, the more courageous (or, rather, foolhardy) driver will usually win because he is prepared to hold out under the threat of collision longer than the other player. Similarly, since God is generally prepared to mete out punishment longer than we are prepared to endure it, he can often induce repentance (at least for a time).

So Rhoda’s God endows his creatures with “significant freedom to determine the direction of events,” then punishes them when they exercise their God-given freedom to influence the course of events. What’s the point of having significant freedom on those terms?

Likewise, if God can always hold out longer than the human player, it’s futile to play against God. So isn’t the entire exercise a charade?

When God invites us into a loving relationship with himself, he’s looking for a win–win outcome. We win in life not by competing with God, but by cooperating with him.

What if I don’t want to have a “loving relationship” with Rhoda’s God? What if I just don’t like him? Normally we get to choose our friends.

Mind you, there’d be a strong incentive to play along with Rhoda’s God. And that’s because Rhoda’s God is a lot like Trelane (The Squire of Gothos) and Damien (The Omen). For sheer survival’s sake, it’s prudent to pretend to like him. To humor him. To keep him amused.

Indeed, with a God like that, even if you could beat him at his own game, you’d let him win every time. Make him think he’s a better player than he really is.

For when Rhoda’s God becomes bored or frustrated, he’s dangerous to be around. Has second thoughts about making the human race, so he destroys everyone except for Noah and his family. If Rhoda’s God gets tired of his playmates, you better watch out!

Consider the following passage from Jeremiah 18:7–10 (NASB):

At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

This passage tells us that God will adjust his strategy from blessing to punishing (or vice-versa) in response to whether a particular nation submits to God or rebels against him.

Two problems:

i) In this passage, God doesn’t change his policy. Rather, God has a standing policy. A consistent policy. The policy doesn’t change. The policy varies with the situation, but that variation is built into the policy.

ii) This passage is entirely consonant with predestination. God has predestined that if a nation does x, he will do y, and if a nation does other than x, he will do z. Moreover, God has predestined whether a nation will do x or other than x.

Given that God has a choice in what sort of ‘Creation Game’ to play, a natural question, and a key one for understanding divine providence, is why God would choose to play the sort of Creation Game that he has rather than some other kind of game. To answer that question we have to think about the value of a game. What sorts of factors tend to make a game worth playing? I will identify several such factors and argue that they suggest that God would, all things being equal, prefer to exercise his providence along open theist lines.

Intuitively, there are at least four overlapping factors that can make a game intrinsically more worth playing, at least where human players are concerned...Another desideratum (for us) is that a game have significant and diverse outcomes in which differences in outcomes are predictably, though not necessarily inexorably, correlated with the players’ strategic choices. Thus, in the game of life in which we all find ourselves, we each have a variety of strategies to choose from. For this choice to be worth taking seriously, for the game to be worth taking seriously...

But on Rhoda’s model, we can only affect short-term outcomes, not long-term outcomes. Diversity won’t make a dime’s worth of difference over the long haul.

If that’s right, then it is reasonable to expect that God would prefer to play a Creation Game in which the stakes, both for himself, and for the other players, are non-trivial...Finally, the best games (for us) have uncertain outcomes. Of course, we wouldn’t want outcomes to be completely uncertain, otherwise there would be no predictable correlations between strategies and outcomes...The main reason why the best games have uncertain outcomes is because those that don’t are comparatively boring. That’s why so many games involve randomizing devices, like dice or shuffled cards. That’s why people don’t want to know in advance who is going to win the Super Bowl or the World Series. It eliminates the suspense. For games like chess, knowing exactly how the game was going to go would obviate any reason for actually playing it through. One could just contemplate the series of moves in one’s head. Similarly, if God knew exactly how the Creation Game was going to play out, then one wonders why he would actually initiate the game rather than simply contemplate a virtual “creation.”...Hence, it is at least somewhat unclear why God would choose to initiate a Creation Game unless it were one in which not even he could predict with certainty exactly how it would turn out.

It suggests that God would want the Creation Game to be a meaningful one, with potentially high stakes for the players involved, including God himself. And, finally, it suggests that God would rather have a Creation Game in which there is some degree of genuine risk for him, such that there is no advance guarantee that all of his specific preferences will be met. In short, these reflections suggest that God would play the very sort of Creation Game that open theists believe he is playing.

i) But on Rhoda’s model, there is no risk to God. Even if God loses a hand, he never loses a game. He may win some and lose some in the short term, but he always wins in the long-term.

ii) Moreover, losing doesn’t cost God anything, except his pride. He can’t be physically hurt.

iii) By contrast, it’s his playthings who have everything to lose. Everything to fear. When Rhoda’s God gets mad at his playmates, he becomes vindictive. An unholy terror. Rhoda’s God is like a child God. Like Damien or Trelane.

iv) Rhoda’s God creates playmates because he’s easily bored. He needs someone to play with. He needs to be entertained.

We’re his pets. He creates us for his personal amusement. Like a puppy dog or a toy soldier. But Rhoda’s God is easily frustrated. Has a short-fuse. When he gets mad at the puppy, he sets it on fire, then feels bad later on. 

From a non-open theist perspective, God’s rationale for playing any sort of creation game remains somewhat opaque. According to theological determinists like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, God has chosen a risk-free strategy that involves his ordaining what all of the created players will do. But if that’s so, then created players are not genuine players in the game-theoretical sense.42 Instead, they are like the pawns on the chessboard and it is as though God were playing chess with himself. Alternatively, the type of Creation Game envisaged by theological determinists is analogous to God’s playing a game of solitaire with a stacked deck. For us, playing that sort of game might be a way to “kill time,” but it would hardly be very interesting or challenging. Thus, it is unclear at best why God would choose to play such a game.

In Calvinism, God creates the elect for their own enjoyment rather than his enjoyment. God is generous. He spreads the goodness around. He doesn’t make the elect for what he gets out of it. He needs nothing. But he makes the elect to share in his beatitude.

Evidently, the notion of disinterested love is a foreign concept to Rhoda. That God would bless his creatures, expecting nothing in return, is an alien notion to Rhoda.