Faith and Philosophy 26 (3):320-338 (2009)
Against my interpretation, Brian Leftow argues that Anselm of Canterbury held a presentist theory of time, and that presentism can be reconciled with Anselm’s commitments concerning divine omnipotence and omniscience. I respond, focusing mainly on two issues. First, it is difficult to understand the presentist theory which Leftow attributes to Anselm. I articulate my puzzlement in a way that I hope moves the discussion forward. Second, Leftow’s examples to demonstrate that presentism can be reconciled with Anselm’s understanding of the divine nature assume a mode of divine knowing which is different from what Anselm proposes. I stand by my interpretation
|Keywords||Contemporary Philosophy Philosophy and Religion|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Time, Foreknowledge, and Alternative Possibilities.Jeffrey Green & Katherin Rogers - 2012 - Religious Studies 48 (2):151 - 164.
Similar books and articles
Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God.Katherin A. Rogers - 2007 - Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.
Anselm and His Islamic Contempories on Divine Necessity and Eternity.Katherin Rogers - 2007 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (3):373-393.
Mercy and Justice in St. Anselm's Proslogion.Gregory B. Sadler - 2006 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (1):41-61.
Anselm on Truth.Alice Ramos - 2009 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:183-197.
Added to index2011-02-24
Total downloads32 ( #156,726 of 2,152,647 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #281,037 of 2,152,647 )
How can I increase my downloads?