Where Hasker’s Anti-Molinist Argument Goes Wrong

Faith and Philosophy 33 (2) (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is a response to William Hasker’s “bring about” argument (1999, reiterated in 2011) against the Molinist theory of divine providence. Hasker’s argument rests on his claim that God’s middle knowledge must be regarded as part of the world’s past history; the primary Molinist response has been to resist this claim. This paper argues that even if this claim about middle knowledge is granted, the intended reductio does not go through. In particular, Hasker’s claim about middle knowledge is shown to undermine his proof of the “power entailment principle.” The paper closes with a critical examination of ideas about free will and the past history of the world that might be supposed to support Hasker’s conviction that Molinism is incompatible with a libertarian view of free will.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Anti-Molinist Arguments.William Hasker - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press. pp. 73.
Molinists (still) cannot endorse the consequence argument.Yishai Cohen - 2015 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3):231-246.
An anti-molinist argument.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1991 - Philosophical Perspectives 5:343-353.
Anti-Molinist Argument'.Dean Zimmerman - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press. pp. 140.
Anti-Molinist Argument.William Lane Craig - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press.
“The (Non)-Existence of Molinist Counterfactuals”.William Hasker - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press. pp. 25--37.
Robert Adams’s New Anti-Molinist Argument.William Lane Craig - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861.
Against Limited Foreknowledge.Patrick Todd - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (2):523-538.
the Molinist Debate: A Reply to Hasker.Thomas P. Flint - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press. pp. 37.
A Problem for Hasker.Michael Rota - 2010 - Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):287-305.
An anti-molinist argument.Kenneth J. Perszyk - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 90 (3):215-235.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-01

Downloads
110 (#157,174)

6 months
8 (#342,364)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Arthur Cunningham
St. Olaf College

Citations of this work

Some Puzzles about Molinist Conditionals.Robert C. Koons - 2022 - Roczniki Filozoficzne 70 (1):137-154.

Add more citations

References found in this work

An Essay on Free Will.Peter van Inwagen - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
“The (Non)-Existence of Molinist Counterfactuals”.William Hasker - 2011 - In Ken Perszyk (ed.), Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press. pp. 25--37.

Add more references