Possible Worlds: Middle Knowledge

Alrighty, Just a warning: this lecture sort of trips back on itself. You'll understand better once you read, but as you're reading, keep in mind that Nash says things that he later goes back on. It's to make a point, not to really contradict himself, but nevertheless, it's sort of confusing. Bear with me. It's good stuff though, I promise.

So, Middle Knowledge. What is it? 

A form of knowledge attributed to God by a Jesuit priest- Molina. He was accused of heresy, which tainted his reputation, but he still has great points.

Case study to better understand:
Judas's Betrayal of Jesus

Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. Possible World Scenario: What if Judas had not been paid the 30 pieces?
That proposition is called a Contrary to Fact Conditional.

Remember- Conditionals are "If A...Then B..." statements.
A Contrary to Fact Conditional contains an antecedent clause that is false.

"What if Judas was offered 20 pieces?"
2 possibilities:
     a. He still does it.
     b. He doesn't do it.

You can pursue the possibilities through possible worlds.

Theres no riding the fence, Only one of the possible worlds can obtain. The answer? No clue. Only God knows.

He knows what Contrary to Fact Conditionals would have obtained (essentially, he knows which one would have happened, given it's change in circumstances).

The means through which God understands this is "Middle Knowledge".

There are three ways God knows (Discovered by Molina):
     a. He knows what has happened, and what will happen
     b. He knows what could happen (Pure possibility/All the possible worlds)
     c. He knows what would have happened given a changed variable (This is the big one...)

Implications 

(Here's where you need to take a step back. Don't take all of this seriously, Nash goes back and explains why it doesn't really work. It does sound nice at first though...)

Middle knowledge, given the things we've already stated, has an impact on the Divine Sovereignty Debate. It could possibly reconcile human freedom and divine sovereignty.

God controls the circumstances, and we come in and make the choices.
God leaves the real decision making up to us.
God does not actualize on all of the possible worlds- he can't. He actualizes one through the influence of circumstance. For example, God knew Judas would say yes to 30 pieces of silver. Judas still made the choice though (Preservation of free will).

It solves the relationship between Divine Sovereignty and Free will. (But not really....)

Here's the problem: 

"Entrapment" - When police lure a criminal into making an act through manipulating circumstances (when otherwise the criminal wouldn't have acted).

So, does this mean God is "entrapping" us?
According to the thing above, thats what it looks like.

Mini Rant: Nash doesn't reconcile this, so I'm going to attempt to (Please comment with thoughts...). I think that in order to understand this relationship between Gods sovereignty and free will, we need to take into account his other characteristics. This doesn't answer the non-believer's side, but it sort of addresses it for the believer. God is omnipotent. He is truthful. He is all-knowing. So, when he says that he's sovereign- he means it. And when he says that we have free will- he means it. We may not get the ins and outs, but we're human. We don't necessarily have to get it for it to be truth. And honestly- you probably aren't going to find a super solid answer to this issue. There are ways to reason through it, but it's definitely not an easily fixed problem. If anyone has thoughts on this, PLEASE share. Its making my head spin in circles. I'd really love to know how to address this issue. Nash doesn't even scratch the surface (maybe he will later, but who knows).

Right... Back to Nash...
According to the "Implication" bit:
In order for God to bring about a state of affairs (following the above propositions), he would have to manipulate the entire state of affairs in the history of the world (because everything is intertwined).

All these antecedent conditions which God brings about lead to events happening, like Christ's birth and crucifixion.

BUT...
A sovereign God doesn't need to do that. He doesn't need to manipulate an infinite number of circumstances- it could just be a few. God doesn't need Middle Knowledge (All possible worlds) to influence circumstances. Now, he "needs" it to be considered Sovereign, but he doesn't use it the way certain proponents of Middle Knowledge claim (that'd be the "implication" stuff). Since God is omnipotent (I guess Nash means minus Middle Knowledge...), he could use 1 or 2 circumstances, variables if you will, to change things.

Conclusion

This is another one of those topics that takes a while to digest. After listening to the lecture, taking notes, and writing this post, I'm still not 100% sure on it. But- Nash had a lot of great points. Pondering God's sovereignty (not questioning, just thinking about) is really cool. Its sort of awe-inspiring to think about all the things he knows. Like, specifics, not just "everything". He knows how many stars there are, what each of them is named, the grains of sand, the names of every man, woman, and child, and even better- you. Me. All of us. Not just superficially either- he really knows us. Incredible.

Not to be a broken record- but seriously, if you had thoughts on today's lecture, or even just read it, leave a comment. I love feedback. :)

Stay tuned, soon we start stuff on Miracles. Super interesting stuff guys. You won't want to miss it.