Discussion of yesterday’s mega-review of the ending of Battlestar Galactica included much focus on my negative view of the rule of a god as an intervening character in fiction. Many readers feel that the God of Galactica (Gog) did not so much control events as influence them. This suggests the following sidebar on religion:
Many religions struggle with the concept of a god that is so omniscient, it knows the future. This sometimes is described as being eternal, existing outside of time. The problem is the conflict between this, and free will. I find the two to be contradictory, especially when it comes to the concept found in many Christian sects that free will is most important with respect to your choice about whether to believe in god or not, or whether to be good or evil. The religions say you were created by god, who knew what choices you would make before creating you, but you are also punished for those choices. Even though, if asked, “can I choose another future than the one god knows I will choose, making him wrong?” they will say no.
However, the religious often do not see the same contradiction. We will not resolve this conflict here. I want to address the more direct question of a god who talks to people, and intervenes directly in the mortal world, as Gog does.
Gog appears in the minds of Baltar and many other characters. Gog also directly affects physical events, doing things like returning Starbuck in a new Viper.
Gog also appears to know the future. Gog gives many characters the “Opera House” vision, describing a scene that will take place in the CIC just before the climax of the battle with Cavil. Gog offers a number of other prophecies and is presumably the source of knowledge in the sacred scrolls. Gog arranges for a big confrontation over the “Temple of Five” at the exact time of a supernova. Gog in particular implants a song, whose opening notes, if turned into numbers, are the jump coordinates for a jump from the Colony battle scene to above our Moon. (It should be noted that jump coordinates, as used in the show are rapidly changing numbers which must be precisely calculated in real time based on the motion of ships, stars and planets. There are no fixed coordinates that take you to a specific place.)
One could speculate that Gog fakes all this. For example, perhaps Gog jumped the ship and the coordinates from the song were not relevant. This makes the plot surrounding the song a bit hard to understand. One could also speculate that Gog pushed characters to follow the Opera House script, making the prediction, and many others come true. This is not out of the question but is, one must agree, rather bizarre and perhaps even harder to understand.
Either way, however, this is a being of extreme power and intelligence. To Gog, humans are insignificant.
Whether we have free will or all is determined, I will contend that to any being of such intelligence, and in particular any being with knowledge of the future, there is no such thing as “influence.” Such a being would understand us so well as to know how we would react to any particular phrase or stimulus. Gog would not be surprised at what we do when it has an angel whisper a phrase into our heads.
Gog does not have Angel Six say things to Baltar to persuade him of things, or to see what he will do if those things are said. It’s hard to believe Gog doesn’t know Baltar (or the future itself) so well as to know exactly what Baltar will do in response to statements and visions. To suggest that Gog would be playing it to chance, having no idea what Baltar will choose seems ridiculous for a being that can write coordinates into a song 2,000 years in advance. Indeed, we have to suspect that Gog selected Baltar in advance knowing just how it would use him, and what the result would be. Gog presumably felt that the colonies’ top scientist would make the right tool for manipulating the fleet, and converting others to new philosophies. Similarly Gog did not choose Roslin, Sharon, Caprica and Starbuck by accident or without precise knowledge of what they would do when appropriately triggered.
As such there can be no influencing for Gog. Beings that an omniscient god speaks to can only be instruments who will do exactly what the god knows in advance they will do in response to the stimulus. The biblical notion from the book of Job that God would allow the Satan to “test” Job and his faith is a strange one. (Ditto the test of Abraham.) Of course God knows the result of his game with that Satan, and you would think the Satan would know that God knows. (That’s why this is a story, and not a history.)
We might consider this, roughly, with how you might manipulate your pet or your young child. You can always tell when a young child is lying, as though you can read their simple mind. For a while, you can trick them into doing things when you need to, though they learn quickly. Pets are easier. You can trick your pet into coming inside for a trip to the vet by pretending to call it for food. That trick will work frequently if not abused, though even the animals can learn.
Even better would be to consider the relationship between a programmer and a computer program. Like a god, you know the workings of the computer program completely. It is a deterministic machine to you. To other users it might seem to be unpredictable, but you will know inputs you can give it that will give specific responses. You can even create another copy of the program and test sample inputs to find out what they do, then use those inputs with confidence. While imperfect (we don’t yet recognize free will or consciousness in computer programs) this is the closest analogy to the relationship between an omnsicient god and its human creation.
So when Gog says a few choice words in Baltar’s ear, or has Angel-Six preach about its plan to Baltar, this is not some preacher trying to convert Baltar to the true religion. Gog knows just how Baltar will respond, and knows exactly when he will convert. Gog even knows where Baltar will stand holding Hera on the day the Opera House vision is realized. Baltar (as Gog knows) is too much of a scientist. He only truly converts when he learns that Caprica-Six can see his internal Angel too. Finally given objective evidence, he converts and negotiates the short peace with Cavil.
Of course, Gog knows that the peace with Cavil will be short. Gog has already planned jump coordinates, thousands of years ago, to be used after the peace goes south.
If you are going to have an interventionist god with omniscience or knowledge of the future, there can be no influencing or manipulation. The people manipulated by the god become instruments, not beings of free will. This is one of the reasons that having such a god as a character eliminates meaning from the actions of other characters.
From the Battlestar Galactica Analysis Blog

Here We Are
Job is an old story and has roots in other religions, and there are interpretations of the old testement which suggest that God and the devil are one and the same. Perhaps, the easiest to digest comment on this comes from the Hindu religion. While it's mostly mythical I'm impressed by the reasoning which competes as well as anything with which modern science has to offer.
On a more mundane level one could theorise that Job's struggle is merely the battle between Jobs belief in abstract truths and the world. One may maintain a faith while suffering the human condition. The Buddhist tradition teaches that resolving this struggle is just a step towards enlightenment whereby the mind and universe get into lockstep and everything is as it should be.
There are limits to human knowledge of events and time. Our perspective is tiny. We are quite the dot. Our thoughts and feelings are unreliable and get in the way of thoughts and feelings, so even if THE TRUTH was under our noses we'd probably miss it. Until we don't. I have no better idea than anyone else. Perhaps, not even "God" does if he's merely another super-evolved conciousness swimming in the eternal.
What can one say? Here we are. :-/
Job
It’s true that Job is not the perfect example, as there God knows that Job will pass the test, and allows the horrible treatment more as an example for the Satan and others. What is odd is that the Satan does not know of God’s omniscience in this legend. It is the Satan that tortures Job, with God’s permission.
My point remains that with gods of such knowledge, they can no more “influence” us than we can “influence” a calculator. We punch in 2 x 2, and we know we’ll get 4 every time, because we built the calculator. As complex as we are, we aren’t nearly as random as we think. Already there are millions of situations for which you, yourself can predict what you would do, and a fair subset for which those who know you well could predict what you would do. But just as your wife can reliably predict you will be sad if house burns down, and you don’t consider this a sign of your lack of free will, a god can predict what you’ll do if the right words are said to you.
I agree, Job isn't a perfect
I agree, Job isn't a perfect example but it's good enough. I really wanted to touch on Job to highlight the issues with the quality and history of the story of Job. A lot of Christian theology is badly taught and insular which can give arise to misunderstandings and hostilities.
The logic of free will versus omniscience is an old one. I've seen plenty of religious people ignore that one or throw a fit. But it's also a problem for science. As much as the worst of religion can promote irrationality and hysteria science can also undermine people's sense of awe and self.
All of these questions exist with or without BSG. Leadership and marketing depend on it. In spite of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and bluster modern economics boils down to the crudity of Job and we haven't progressed an inch beyond it. One might as well watch Laurel and Hardy.
Free will and science
Actually, science doesn’t demand free will at all, or even speak to it much. Science does show us that the universe is not deterministic, but has no concept of “will.”
Religion makes a big deal about free will, because it is the root of the choice one makes about religious and moral issues, and punishment is meted out or reward given based on those choices.
Well of course there are faiths that don’t do that, like the Calvinists and many others outside of the monotheists.
As people, we cherish the concept of free will of course, even though we’re not really quite sure what it is. Are we free to act other than the way our neurons make us act? Anyway, these are ancient questions. With respect to this blog, my point remains that once you are in a discussion with a being that knows the future, free will goes out the window. The being knows just what you will do, and just what to say to make you do anything you can be made to do.
There can be stuff you won’t do, of course, such as Job won’t blame God for his troubles no matter what. It is interesting though, if one must argue for the existence of free will in the face of God by saying, “there are some choices even God can’t convince me to make!”
Makes you sound like a pretty pre-determined being.
I've seen people leap on
I've seen people leap on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as proof of "free will" but I've never been convinced of that. Also, like Einsten, I'm not persuaded that Quantum Physics is 'it'. Just because we can't penetrate hidden layers doesn't mean that one should derive a truth from that. Guessing would be more reliable.
Anglo-Saxon law and its derivitives make a big deal of responsibility. While one could argue the universe only came into existence five minutes ago or it was negligent potty training that did it that doesn't wash with courts of law. These defences have been tried but law informed in part by science has dismissed them.
Personally, I wouldn't want to lean too much one way or the other. Religion, science, and law are merely ideas. They have a certain direct and indirect usefullness but beyond that become absurd. Indeed, people can misunderstand religion, science, and law as things unto themselves or mess it up before we get very deep into it.
If one could peek into time there's probably a caveman sitting somewhere wishing he'd never started this God troll thing around the campfire. But people do say stupid things and bang on the most about things they know nothing about so, I suppose, the outcome was inevitable. Better luck next time around, eh?
A Way Out?
If you are going to have an interventionist god with omniscience or knowledge of the future, there can be no influencing or manipulation. The people manipulated by the god become instruments, not beings of free will. This is one of the reasons that having such a god as a character eliminates meaning from the actions of other characters.
I agree with this, but there is an "out" for somebody writing fiction with omniscient characters. I actually had to come up with something like this for a piece of fiction that I was trying to troubleshoot for the author, and which involved the unquestioned (in-universe) existence of the Judeo-Christian God. The out (or cheat) was this: an omniscient God recognizes that its omniscience destroys free will; so an *omnipotent* one can, if it cares to, choose to simply not know - to willfully blind itself. Maybe it wants human to have free will; maybe He just wants to be surprised; maybe the former is a means to the latter.
One could argue that an omniscient being not using its omniscience is not...well, omniscient. This point is strictly true, but not very sporting - or, in other words, an audience willing to read a story that presupposes God will probably give the author enough leeway to accept an explanation like this. BSG, unfortunately, proffered no explanation at all, and (as Brad points out elsewhere) does not unequivocally ESTABLISH the existence of God...er, Gog...in the world, so that when His Heavy Hand descends on every damn plot thread resolution in the finale, it is rightly regarded as cheating.
This is a delicate argument
This is a delicate argument but there is some merit in "willfull blindness". One has to tease away gently at the nature of good versus evil, insight and balance, and so forth but there is some theological foundation for this in Christianity and other religions like Islam and Bhuddhism. The idea that knowing "God" is to know madness, and that the damned are forever cast from Gods eye have some salience here.
In part this is why I mentioned Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. The "invisible hand" is as much a part of stone cold no God required economics as it is religion. If myths of God and self-delusions are cast aside there's an underlying mechanism that "directs" and "influences" the "outcomes" we experience. On this the most celebtrated scholar and humble peasant are one. Nobody knows more than anyone else.
* For the purpose of discussion "God", god, or God are interchangeable. One may talk about a totally mechanical reality or conciously driven one. To all intents and purposes they're the same.
Wilful blindness
You could write the divine this way, though of course it is not the Christian’s god. It might actually be Yaweh, who seemed less omniscient, and was always asking questions and testing people.
However, my point is about an intervening god, who is talking to people. To make your approach work, the god would have to turn off his powers and then try to talk to people to influence them, risking failure in making them do his will. I suppose you could write a god that likes that risk, or demands it in order to not have slaves. But gods that need people to do their bidding always seemed strange to me.
Proof by Demonstration
Um, Brad. You need to look again at the Christian God, and check to see if you understand what wilfull blindness is.
Unless this is your way of proving the point to yourself...
You are definitely right in
You are definitely right in that Yahweh was a less omniscient god; in the OT Yahweh is often like Greek gods in that he seems to need to have humans do his will, and goes around doing things like, well, wrestling with people, physically. But I disagree that my postulated god is not the Christians' god. Even many fundamentalist Christians effectively acknowledge that he is *not* omnipotent in their belief that he is limited by his own nature...that, for example, he cannot lie.
As for "demand[ing] it in order to not have slaves", that's exactly the point. God already has angels to do his will and sing his praises - humans must be meant for something else, and so there must be a possibility of failure.
This in no way takes away from your points that it's an awful lot of divine intervention for very little purpose, or that divine intervention is device indicating total narrative (and cognitive, IMHO) surrender. All I'm saying is that given a (literary or dramatic) god who can be omniscient and omnipotent and who actually cares about his creations, it is not impossible to imagine why he'd choose to move humans around the chessboard rather than either leave them to their own devices entirely (we've seen where that goes in the BSG universe) or simply bamf the world into his preferred configuration. The idea, I imagine, is that this way humans and Cylons would learn their lesson, though other narrative flaws in the story (as you have pointed out) actually demonstrate that this is not so.
Free will isn't determined by knowledge!
"Many religions struggle with the concept of a god that is so omniscient, it knows the future. This sometimes is described as being eternal, existing outside of time. The problem is the conflict between this, and free will. I find the two to be contradictory"
How come? Imagine a camera that, at any moment can go to any point in time (past or future point alike, doesn't matter) and go back to it's owner. Whatever happened or will happen is no secret to camera owner. However - where's his influence in the actions taken?
Knowledge doesn't influence anything (not in that way, at least). I know 2 times 2 gives 4, but in no way I determine what the outcome on that calculator will be. That's determined by something else entirely.
Ineffable
I find it remarkable that the thinkers behind the Tao grasped so many things. They understood that the substance of reality ran through everything, and that words were mere symbols wrapped around this unknowable reality. Plato had some insight into this as did more recent philosophers.
Some might consider any statement on these issues to be arrogant. Whether it's a priest or a scientist making proclomations based on less than certain understanding is a little hasty and almost always wrong. At best it's no more than a guess in the hope you get lucky.
One thing is sure: nobody knows anything. ;-)
Not to be resolved here
This debate won’t get resolved here. As for the “how come?” — the basic answer is that that people ask how, if god already knows that you will turn left at the end of the street, can you choose to turn right? Or is your future predetermined? Some see this as a conflict with their concept of free will, and some don’t. However, that’s not the subject of this article, which is “If god whispers to you something that it omnisciently knows will make you turn right, are you an instrument or merely being influenced?”
Grace
There is a comment in many religions that we are "saved by grace". Technically, ego gets in the way between the self and reality. There is little the broken clock can do to fix itself but by letting go, dropping all ego driven preconceptions and clinging, ones "Buddha nature" might emerge. This is being "saved by grace". God is not necessarily required and this principle can be tested in everyday situations so should keep atheists and scientists happy as well. I see no reason why this can't operate in the reverse direction with free will and omniscience.
"Understanding" and "solving" are merely perspectives. There is nothing to understand or solve. This is counter-intuitive to the ego which finds letting go of preconceptions and clinging very difficult. It wants to understand or more properly impose understanding, or solve or more properly bend the world to its liking. However, once one grasps this and stops being such an egotistical putz things get a little easier. Again, this is why Buddhism among other religions comment that the short cut is the long path. The reasoning is poetic but quite sound.
I'm acknowledging that in
I'm acknowledging that in leaving my two cents, I obviously want to seem smart and curious. And my following response, though dismissive, is honestly asked. God is generally acknowledged to be omniscient and omnipotent. I would think that if God was just one of those things, it would be pretty easy to be the other. Thus the question: "If god whispers to you something that it omnisciently knows will make you turn right, are you an instrument or merely being influenced?”
really reduces to "Can a being that can do anything do the impossible ie two mutually exclusive things simultaneously like influencing and directing?"
Can someone who knows everything solve a paradox? Well if he knows everything, he should have the answer to any problem...but a paradox is a problem without a logical solution...but in knowing everything he would know how to circumvent causal relationships...but...
It's fun for a while, but it's been done before. How much time can we devote to (pardon the paradox) know the unknowable?
The knowledge per se isn't the problematic thing.
Consider the logic like this: for any being to have omniscient knowledge of the future, the future must be knowable. If future events are knowable, that means they are predetermined. And if future events are predetermined, then how can I possibly have any choice about what my future actions will be?
Thus it's not omniscience per se that precludes free will... it's the very possibility of omniscience, at least as something that transcends time. (And this is why the "God who chooses not to know" concept isn't an effective loophole, BTW.)
Thanks a lot!
Brad, thanks very much for the great reading and commentary on BSG over the past few years. It's been challenging, thought provoking and a lot of fun! I count myself as one who was also very dissappointed with the conclusion; but I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Cheers!
Post new comment