Collingwood on God and the Future

By -
"looking at history as a succession of detached events temporally distinct, [Christ] cannot know the future; future history, actions, events generally he cannot foretell. But this is simply because, taking history in this abstract way, the future is positively undetermined, non-existent as yet, unknowable; God himself cannot know it. On the other hand, if history means the discovery of absolute truth and the development of God's purposes, the divine man will stand at the centre of it and know it past and future, from within..." -- Religion and Philosophy, p. 157


Comments

  1. Bob Murphy8:38 PM

    I am happy with this post, Gene. I think he reconciles our positions.

    (A) If we define the future such that it is unknowable, then God can't know it. I have no problem with this claim; how could I?

    (B) If we define the future as unfolding according to God's purposes, then He of course knows the future. My addition: This is clearly what the Bible teaches, so clearly the God of the Bible knows the future.


    Are you OK with the above? To repeat in all of this, I'm not saying you are wrong, I just want you to admit that your position is unorthodox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:10 PM

      Yes, my position is unorthodox.

      As I read him, Collingwood is saying God doesn't know the future in terms of particular details, especially our choices, because these haven't been made yet, and thus are "undetermined." But he knows it in terms of its broad direction: that would allow all sorts of prophecy, i think.

      Delete
    2. Bob Murphy11:18 PM

      Oops OK you're right, I saw what I wanted to see, I guess. I thought he was giving alternative definitions, but I now agree with you that he seems to think that if history is a succession of events, then the future must be unknowable.

      So, I disagree with this.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more