David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 20 (2/3):65 - 91 (1986)
In conclusion, then, the notion of temporal necessity is certainly queer and perhaps a misnomer. It really has little to do with temporality per se and everything to do with counterfactual openness or closedness. We have seen that the future is as unalterable as the past, but that this purely logical truth is not antithetical to freedom or contingency. Moreover, we have found certain past facts are counterfactually open in that were future events or actualities to be other than they will be, these past facts would have been different as a consequence. God's beliefs about the future are such past facts. Moreover, the effects of actions which God would have taken had He believed differently are also such past facts. Oddly enough, then, virtually any past fact is potentially counterfactually open, and the only necessity that remains is purely de facto. We, of course, do not in general know which events of the past depend counterfactually on present actions, and those cases we do know about seem rather trivial. Our intuitions of the necessity, unalterability, and unpreventability of the past as opposed to the future stem from the impossibility of backward causation, which is precluded by the dynamic nature of time and becoming. But the counterfactual dependence of God's beliefs on future events or actualities is not a case of backward causation: rather future-tense propositions are true in virtue of what will happen, given a view of truth as correspondence, and God simply has the essential property of knowing all and only true propositions. With regard to the future, virtually all facts are counterfactually open, and therefore future-tense propositions are not temporally necessary. Propositions thus move from being temporally contingent to being temporally necessary when all the opportunities to affect things counterfactually have slipped by. Hence, the mere fact that an event is past is no indication that it is counterfactually closed. This is especially evident in the case of God's foreknowledge. If we say that God foreknows that I shall do x and therefore I cannot refrain from doing x, lest I change God's past foreknowledge, we are being deceived by a modality which has nothing to do with my power or freedom. All that is impossible is the conjunction of God's foreknowledge that p and of ~ p; but this modality in sensu composito has no bearing on my ability to act such that ~ p would be true and God would have foreknown differently. Temporal necessity, then, turns out to be only obliquely temporal and modally weak, certainly no threat to freedom or divine foreknowledge
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. R. Lucas (1958). On Not Worshipping Facts. Philosophical Quarterly 8 (31):144-156.
Eric T. Olson (2006). Imperfect Identity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2):247–264.
William Lane Craig (1989). 'Nice Soft Facts': Fischer on Foreknowledge. Religious Studies 25 (2):235 - 246.
Andreas Kemmerling (2003). Belief Ascription: Objective Sentences and Soft Facts. Facta Philosophica 5 (2):203-222.
Joshua Hoffman & Gary Rosenkrantz (1984). ``Hard and Soft Facts&Quot. Philosophical Review 93:419-434.
Joshua Hoffman & Gary Rosenkrantz (1984). Hard and Soft Facts. Philosophical Review 93 (3):419-434.
John Martin Fischer (1986). Hard-Type Soft Facts. Philosophical Review 95 (4):591-601.
J. M. (2002). Supervenience and (Non-Modal) Reductionism in Leibniz's Philosophy of Time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):793-810.
John R. Shook (2006). God's Justified Knowledge and the Hard-Soft Fact Distinction. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:69-73.
David Widerker (2002). Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts. Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads133 ( #18,424 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #84,767 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?