Explanatory priority: Transitive and unequivocal, a reply to William Craig
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (2):389-393 (1997)
| Abstract | According to William Craig, the notion of explanatory priority is the Achilles' heel of Robert Adams' argument against Molinism. Specifically, Craig contends that (1) the notion of explanatory priority is employed equivocally in the argument; (2) Adams is guilty of conflating reasons and causes; and (3) one of the intermediate conclusions of the argument is invalidly inferred, as can be seen by a counterexample. I argue that Craig is mistaken on all counts, and that Adams' argument emerges unscathed | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWes Morriston (2002). Craig on the Actual Infinite. Religious Studies 38 (2):147-166.
David B. Myers (2003). Rejoinder to William Lane Craig. Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430.
Graham Oppy (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Philo 5 (1):34-61.
William Lane Craig (1994). Robert Adams's New Anti-Molinist Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861.
Wes Morriston (2001). Explanatory Priority and the Counterfactuals of Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 18 (1):21-35.
William Hasker (2000). ``Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):126-131.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads11 ( #99,611 of 549,638 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,638 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
