David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Religious Studies 35 (3):299-305 (1999)
This paper argues that William Hasker's 'A new anti-Molinist argument' offers a fascinating but ultimately unsuccessful new instalment in his continuing campaign to discredit the picture of providence based on the theory of middle knowledge. It is first shown that Hasker's argument, though suffering from a seemingly irreparable logical gap, does nicely highlight a significant (and hitherto unduly underemphasized) point of contention between Molinists and anti-Molinists -- the question whether or not Molinists are committed to viewing counterfactuals of creaturely freedom as part of the history of the world. Hasker's argument that they are so committed is shown to be lacking, for that argument depends upon a premise against which several contemporary Molinists have already presented independent arguments. Furthermore, the premise is not one which, on reflection, many traditional Christians could easily accept. Hence, Hasker's argument fails. It may remind us that some of the things Molinists are led to say are surprising, but it by no means shows that those surprising consequences make the view unworthy of our allegiance
|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
Ken Perszyk (2013). Recent Work on Molinism. Philosophy Compass 8 (8):755-770.
Similar books and articles
Alex Rajczi (2009). Abortion, Competing Entitlements, and Parental Responsibility. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (4):379-395.
Dean Zimmerman (2003). Richard Gale and the Free Will Defense. Philo 6 (1):78-113.
William Hasker (2000). ``Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):126-131.
Carl Matheson (1998). Why the No-Miracles Argument Fails. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (3):263 – 279.
Joseph Shieber (2009). Personal Responsibility and Middle Knowledge: A Challenge for the Molinist. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 66 (2):61 - 70.
William Lane Craig (1998). ``On Hasker's Defense of Anti-Molinism&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):236-240.
William Lane Craig (1998). On Hasker's Defense of Anti-Molinism. Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):236-240.
William Hasker (2000). Are Alternative Pasts Plausible? A Reply to Thomas Flint. Religious Studies 36 (1):103-105.
William Hasker (1999). A New Anti-Molinist Argument. Religious Studies 35 (3):291-297.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #27,221 of 1,102,738 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #46,741 of 1,102,738 )
How can I increase my downloads?