Abstract
AbstractRecently, several authors have utilized the notion of dependence to respond to the traditional argument for the incompatibility of freedom and divine foreknowledge. However, proponents of this response have not always been so clear in specifying where the incompatibility argument goes wrong, which has led to some unfounded objections to the response. We remedy this dialectical confusion by clarifying both the dependence response itself and its interaction with the standard incompatibility argument. Once these clarifications are made, it becomes clear both (1.) that the dependence response does not beg the question against the proponent of the incompatibility argument and (2.) that the dependence response advances the dialectic whether it is developed as a version of Ockhamism or as a version of multiple-pasts compatibilism.
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Reference20 articles.
1. Fischer, John Martin, ed. 1989. God, Foreknowledge, and Freedom (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
2. Fischer, John Martin. 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control (Oxford: Blackwell).
3. Fischer, John Martin. 2011. “Freedom, Foreknowledge, and the Fixity of the Past,” Philosophia, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 461–474.
4. Fischer, John Martin. 2016. Our Fate: Essays on God and Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).
5. Fischer, John Martin, and Neal Tognazzini. 2013. “The Logic of Theological Incompatibilism: A Reply to Westphal,” Analysis, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 46–48.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Foreknowledge requires determinism;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research;2022-07-27
2. The Independence Solution to the Problem of Theological Fatalism;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research;2020-11-24