Sophia 46 (3) (2007)
|Abstract||It is widely believed that (1) if theological determinism were true, in virtue of God’s role in determining created agents to perform evil actions, created agents would be neither free nor morally responsible for their evil actions and God would not be perfectly good; (2) if metaphysical compatibilism were true, the free-will defense against the deductive problem of evil would fail; and (3) on the assumption of metaphysical compatibilism, God could have actualized just any one of those myriad possible worlds that are populated only by compatibilist free creatures. The primary thesis of this essay is that none of these propositions is true. This thesis is defended by appealing to a recently proposed novel, acausal, composite, unified theory of free action – the Theory of Middle Freedom – that evades the central problems plaguing traditional theories of metaphysical compatibilism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jim Stone (1998). Free Will as a Gift From God: A New Compatibilism. Philosophical Studies 92 (3):257-81.
Kevin Timpe (2007). Truth-Making and Divine Eternity. Religious Studies (3):299-315.
David Basinger (1982). Anderson on Plantinga. Philosophy Research Archives 8:315-320.
Jeremy Randel Koons (2002). Is Hard Determinism a Form of Compatibilism? Philosophical Forum 33 (1):81-99.
Richard M. Gale (1990). Freedom and the Free Will Defense. Social Theory and Practice 16 (3):397-423.
Andrew Eshleman (1997). Alternative Possibilities and the Free Will Defence. Religious Studies 33 (3):267-286.
James Cain (2004). Free Will and the Problem of Evil. Religious Studies 40 (4):437-456.
Loren E. Lomasky (1975). Are Compatibilism and the Free Will Defense Compatible? Personalist 56:385-388.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads71 ( #11,975 of 549,113 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,113 )
How can I increase my downloads?