No (New) Troubles with Ockhamism

Authors
D. Justin Coates
University of Houston
Abstract
The Ockhamist claims that our ability to do otherwise is not endangered by God’s foreknowledge because facts about God’s past beliefs regarding future contingents are soft facts about the past—i.e., temporally relational facts that depend in some sense on what happens in the future. But if our freedom, given God’s foreknowledge, requires altering some fact about the past that is clearly a hard fact, then Ockhamism fails even if facts about God’s past beliefs are soft. Recent opponents of Ockhamism, including David Widerker and Peter van Inwagen, have argued along precisely these lines. Their arguments, if successful, would undermine Ockhamism while avoiding the controversy over the alleged softness of facts about God’s past beliefs. But these arguments do not succeed. The past facts they rely on must be clear and uncontroversial examples of hard facts about the past, and these facts must be such that an ability to refrain from the relevant future action implies an ability to alter the relevant hard fact. We demonstrate the flaw in these arguments by showing how they rely on past facts that do not satisfy these criteria. The Ockhamist may have troubles, but this type of argument is not one of them.
Keywords Ockhamism  Free will  Foreknowledge  David Widerker  Peter van Inwagen  Theological fatalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Costs of Ockhamism.Ciro De Florio & Aldo Frigerio - 2016 - Axiomathes 26 (4):489-507.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Troubles with Ockhamism.David Widerker - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (9):462-480.
Troubles with Ockhamism.David Widerker - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87:462-480.
Ockhamism Vs Molinism, Round 2: A Reply to Warfield.T. Ryan Byerly - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (4):503 - 511.
Troubles with Trivialism.Otávio Bueno - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (6):655 – 667.
Ockhamism.John Martin Fischer - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):81-100.
Pike's Ockhamism.John Martin Fischer - 1986 - Analysis 46 (1):57 - 63.
In Defence of Ockhamism.Sven Rosenkranz - 2012 - Philosophia 40 (3):617-631.
Shapshot Ockhamism.John Martin Fischer - 1991 - Philosophical Perspectives 5:355-371.
``Ockhamism&Quot.John Martin Fischer - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94:81-100.
Nicholas of Autrecourt, Buridan and Ockhamism.T. Kermit Scott - 1971 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (1):15-41.
Contra Snapshot Ockhamism.David Widerker - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (2):95 - 102.
``Contra Snapshot Ockhamism&Quot.David Widerker - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39:95-102.
Troubles with Plantinga's Reading of Millikan.Ruth Garrett Millikan - 2013 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (2):454-456.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-10-29

Total views
55 ( #123,689 of 2,312,700 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #69,530 of 2,312,700 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature