Explain the concern of Boethius in Consolations of Philosophy. To what extent does Boethius resolve the paradox of God’s foreknowledge?
Boethius’ main concern was in showing that god rewards and punishes justly. In order for Boethius to successfully address this concern and answer it convincingly, he must explain the problem of evil and suffering in our world, as well as explain how God can exist with his specific attributes and still allow for us to have free will. Such issues raise three important questions relating to; time and where God is within it, the two kinds of necessity and God’s divine foreknowledge. On analysis of these points, Boethius doesn’t resolve the problem of God’s foreknowledge to an extent where both God and his foreknowledge can exist coherently.
There have been many attempts to truly define what it means for god to be eternal. This description comes from the Judaeo-Christian ideas surrounding God. Boethius took this description of God to mean that he was out of time, rather than the everlasting meaning of the word. This means that God experiences everything all at once; our past, present and future are all in God’s “present”, although this explanation of God is not correct as god does not technically have a present as he is out of time. The everlasting interpretation instead points towards a God that is in time with us, and therefore experiences everything as we experience them, whilst still being omnipotent and omniscient. There are a few problems with Boethius’ approach to God being eternal. Anthony Kenny noted that it is incoherent for God to be both out of time and also able to intervene. In order to intervene, he must arguably be in time that the he knows when to intervene as he sees the events being played out. Whilst this is true from a human logical approach, one could say that we simply cannot comprehend this idea. However there is another problem that Boethius’ approach cannot answer. In order for God’s relationship with the world to have genuine providence, God would require some kind of middle knowledge between the event and the overall choice to account for
There have been many attempts to truly define what it means for god to be eternal. This description comes from the Judaeo-Christian ideas surrounding God. Boethius took this description of God to mean that he was out of time, rather than the everlasting meaning of the word. This means that God experiences everything all at once; our past, present and future are all in God’s “present”, although this explanation of God is not correct as god does not technically have a present as he is out of time. The everlasting interpretation instead points towards a God that is in time with us, and therefore experiences everything as we experience them, whilst still being omnipotent and omniscient. There are a few problems with Boethius’ approach to God being eternal. Anthony Kenny noted that it is incoherent for God to be both out of time and also able to intervene. In order to intervene, he must arguably be in time that the he knows when to intervene as he sees the events being played out. Whilst this is true from a human logical approach, one could say that we simply cannot comprehend this idea. However there is another problem that Boethius’ approach cannot answer. In order for God’s relationship with the world to have genuine providence, God would require some kind of middle knowledge between the event and the overall choice to account for